Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, deleting the highway=path tags here leaves data consumers with access permissions attached to nothing. You'll notice that they've completely disappeared from the map following your edit(s).

If it's a permissive footpath and isn't used by estate vehicles, I suggest using:

highway=footway
foot=permissive
designation=permissive_footpath
(no other access tags needed)

If it's used by estate vehicles, you might use:
highway=track
vehicle=private
foot=permissive
designation=permissive_footpath

You could also add the following to indicate who's responsible for the permissive nature of the path:
operator=National Trust
operator:wikidata=Q333515

Please let me know if you need any help reverting or repairing these edits.

I see that you have set crossing:markings=dashes on way/1421344450

Pedestrian crossings over public roads in the UK do not use dashes as crossing markings. They may use dots, a traffic sign authorised as TSRGD diagram 1055.1.

Some cycle only or segregated cycle crosssings may use dashes. This is not the case here.

You have also joined the temporary footway way/1392888355 to a kerb node. It isn't. It was added by people who regularly check on the progress of the roadworks here. The note tag is intended to be read by armchair mappers who might not be aware that the available imagery is not current.

Also, please don't tag links in the middle of complex junctions like way/655623536 as having sidewalks. They don't.

I'm also curious as to why you're placing sidewalk=both and sidewal=no with sidewalk:both=yes and sidewalk:both=no respectively. They're both valid, but is this a suggested tag "upgrade" from the Rabid editor?

Could you explain why you have added footway=sidewalk to way/1041807718 and way/1041807716 ?

These are not sidewalks. Not all footways in urban areas are sidewalks and the paths through the planted area between the two parts of Prospect Row are definitely not sidewalks.

I see that you replaced crossing:markings=zebra;dots with crossing:markings=dots on node/5933198168

I distinctly remember the TSRGD diagram 1055.1 dots being there on every one of the hundreds of occasions on which I have walked or run across that zebra crossing.

Thanks for deleting those. They wouldn't have been particularly helpful for pedestrian navigation.

Shouldn't that be ref:GB-NWM:planning rather than ref:GB:lbn:planning, as that's the ISO 3166-2:GB code for London Borough of Newham?

As usual for one of your edits, adding a fictitious weight restriction is not an improvement.

Pedestrians are not prohibited here and access tags in OSM are supposed to reflect the real legal position. There's no sign here, therefore no prohibition. Fiction removed.

I'm not sure how, but your edit also deleted a residential landuse polygon in Canterbury, UK. Reinstated in changeset/171323526

No, it isn't. It's not signed as a Home Zone and it's not residential.

(Review requested)

For overgrown sections, there are some alternatives to deletion which may apply here:
overgrown=*
obstacle=*
trail_visibility=*

If you feel that any of those apply, it's probably worth adding a check_date tag as well.

I realise you mapped this 5 years ago, but could I check the access tagging you've used on the N-S service road parallel to Booth Road: access=no + motor_vehicle=designated (no transport mode may use this road, except all motor vehicles for which it is a legal right of way)?

way/837344032

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

The access tagging you've used here (access=no + motor_vehicle=permissive + bicycle=no + foot=permissive) is equivalent to saying "this track may not be used by any transport mode, except drivers of motor vehicles and pedestrians who are permitted to use it at any time, although this permission may be withdrawn."

If you meant "this is a private track, which may only be used with explicit permission", the only access tag you need is access=private

Done in changeset/171144734

I'm afraid I have no idea why that's happening in Facebook. It may be a problem on their side, as they have their own check in locations which are harder to correct.

Thanks. It's probably better to undelete just the building outline (I can do this for you, I'm not sure if it's possible in the web-based iD editor) so that it preserves the edit history, but change it to something like building=construction while it's being redeveloped.

building=construction

Thanks for updating this. Is the building where the café and restaurant were located still there?

Adding machine learning crap without bothering to check it is bad enough without being your being patronising.

Was the 15mph speed limit on Victoria Bridge a temporary restriction for street works?

Are these living streets all signed as home zones? From the aerial imagery, they just appear to have a different surface and no pavements/sidewalks. Presumably they also have the default 30 mph speed limit of other restricted roads? They're the antithesis of living streets: the developer appears to have prioritised cars and made no provision whatsoever for pedestrians.

highway=living_street