No problem, it's probably one of the most common misunderstandings with access tags in the UK. Generally access tags should reflect the legal situation rather than whether it's safe or appropriate for a particular access mode.

Pedestrian routing software may prefer to use the separate sidewalks and tags like sidewalk:both=separate on the road should help with that. I think there are some cases where the implementation chooses to ignore separate sidewalks, in which case foot=no on the road might cause a problem.

foot=no tags removed in changeset/174922425

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

For data consumers to understand what this is, including map renderers, you will need to add some other tags.

From your changeset comment, I would guess that it might be these:

amenity=social_facility
social_facility=outreach
social_facility:for=juvenile

You can have a look at the documentation for these tags on linked wiki. There may well be other tags which better describe the situation.
amenity=social_facility

If you'd like any help with this, or anything else to do with OSM, please feel free to reply below.

That's a good idea. I'll add some sort of progress table to the import wiki page after I get back from SoTM.

After the import stage, I'm trying to fill in incomplete addresses for each sector. That's been done for all of E4, E6 and E7, plus E10 7, E17 5, E17 7 and E17 8 so far.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Could I just check the situation on Pencester Road? As it was previously tagged, oneway=yes + oneway:bus=no made it one way for general traffic, but two way for buses.

Changing it to oneway=no makes it a two way street for all traffic, not just buses.

Also, please note that I attempted to contact the user who added the incorrect address and waited 3 weeks for a response before reverting the changeset.
changeset/157041429

The addr:* tags refer to the *actual* address of the object, not that of its owner or operator. There is the abandoned contact:addr:*

Feel free to add those tags, together with appropriate wikidata links, if you have an OSM-compatible source for the information.

* Ross-on-Wye HR9, not Deal CT14

* Deal CT14 (typo in comment only)

At he moment it won't go over 100 features. If no unpleasant surprises happen in the next few weeks, I'll ask in the community forum for feedback on increasing the limits in the script.

I'm not quite sure why 42 Osborne Road was filtered out by one of the SQL stages. I'll take a look at that next time I'm in all day and can run each step one at a time and see why that happened.

There will be other gaps because the script which processes the OSM XML file halts at 100 features or 10 postcodes, whichever comes first.

The main aim of this is to get as many missing postcodes into OSM as I can, so I won't worry too much about gaps now.

Merci!

Ends of crossing ways connected to the kerb nodes, which were already mapped (in 2017) in changeset/174198530

The segments of kerb which had been mapped included information about the kerb height and the presence of tactile paving. Mapping separate sidewalks, but ignoring accessibility information which has already been surveyed is very unhelpful to users with visual or mobility impairments.

I've truncated the decorative sidewalk stubs from this and related changesets to the nearest junctions, as they are detrimental to pedestrian navigation.
changeset/174196909

The unconnected crossing node looks like a fat-fingered copy and paste error, removed in changeset/174060650

No, node/2371177121 was unintentional, fixed in changeset/174060538

Oh dear, that's embarrassing. Fixed in changeset/174060418

Has the Victoria branch of Vagabond Wines at this location really closed and been replaced by your office?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding the restaurant. Has this replaced "Slurp", previously mapped at 17 Frith Street?

Thanks!