Thank you!

The service road for the school is tagged as access=private, which indicates that the object is not to be used by the general public. Access is only with permission on an individual basis. This would be the usual case for a gated road on school grounds, unless there was a public right of way.

Adding motor_vehicle=yes + bicycle=yes + foot=yes implies that the public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access using those transport modes; i.e., it's a right of way. Please could you confirm whether there is a public right of way, or revert your change?

Thanks.

There is a full explanation of tagging in OpenStreetMap here:
osm.wiki/Key:access

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

For Public Rights of Way in England, there's a more detailed scheme for tagging access and designation, which you could use, if it's of interest. (Note that it's not essential and there's absolutely nothing wrong with your edit as it is.)

For example, the LAT9 bridleway in this changeset could be tagged as:
highway=bridleway
designation=public_bridleway
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
horse=designated
prow_ref=Latimer BR 9

Details of tagging for various types of PRoW are at:
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

There is also a website which allows you to check the status of PRoW mapping in some parts of the country. Progress for Latimer CP, Buckinghamshire is actually better than this suggests, as the tool does not recognise the current tagging using (e.g.) ref=LAT9
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/bucks/-/latimer/

I hope that the above is of some use or interest, but feel free to ignore it if it isn't.

Thanks for adding this - the separate sidewalks added in this area seem to have been more decorative than functional, so are currently of limited use for pedestrian routing.

In order for routing engines to include a new edge in the routing graph, the added way generally needs to have a highway=* tag, in this case highway=footway.

I have added this, together with information about the crossing (type, accessibility, etc.) in osm.org/changeset/136128749

Redundant names removed by @wikimax in osm.org/changeset/133615170

You have traced duplicate buildings traced on top of buildings, which is why the iD editor warned you about crossing buildings. Please don't ignore editor warnings unless you understand them and have a good reason.

The name tag isn't a description field. We have building=house for that.

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/136116338

Repeating my comments on changeset #134414016:

1) The name=* key is for the unique name of an object, not just a general description. If there isn't an appropriate tag, you can use description=*, but in this case you could use building=house. I've linked to the documentation on these below.

osm.wiki/Key:name
osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse

2) You've traced some houses on top of houses which had already mapped.

3) Please don't type gibberish as your changeset comment.

As the previous comment was ignored, reverted without further discussion in
osm.org/changeset/136116111

foot=no removed in osm.org/changeset/136115627

foot=no removed in osm.org/changeset/136115495

1) Staines Road is a primary road (A315), not a residential road.

2) Because someone chose to map them. As with the individual orchard trees you deleted a couple of years ago, a feature not being mapped the way you would do it is not an adequate reason to delete it. The feature not existing or being otherwise factually incorrect would be, but that is not the case here.

I would not usually map separate sidewalks on a residential road, unless it was a new development with a lot of crossings with accesibility features. However, another mapper did and the features exist.

On main roads with defined crossing points, separate sidewalks are useful for pedestrian/wheelchair/VI routing, particularly where accesibility features and obstacles can be mapped in more detail than crossings as a node on the highway only.

Why did you delete the separate sidewalks along Hatton Road and Myrtle Avenue?

Reinstated, with more crossing detail in osm.org/changeset/136040522

Thanks. There's also a building=pavilion tag, if you think that it would be appropriate for these.

osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Dpavilion

Is there any signage to suggest that Leatherbottle Green really is a living street, or is it just a normal residential street with no additional restrictions?

The building outline is fine, many thanks for adding it.

I am not sure how it could be tagged as a classroom, although amenity=community_centre might work if it's a community garden.

osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcommunity_centre

If that doesn't look suitable and you wanted to tag it as more than a building, you could ask here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

Your edit looks fine, although there are a couple if extra things you could do if you wanted.

You could add the fence at the boundary of the residential area and add noexit=yes to the now unconnected ends of Salisbury Road and the footway. These are not essential, but will stop validation software asking mappers to check whether they should be connected.

Links to the wiki documentation are below.

osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dfence
osm.wiki/Key:noexit

This node applies to the clock, not the tower, and needs to retain the amenity=clock tag.

The tower itself is mapped (with official_name="Elizabeth Tower") as osm.org/way/123557148

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

You requested a review of this edit and it looks fine to me. There are other tags which you can add, like operator="Royal Mail", but they are not strictly necessary.

Great work with all your StreetComplete updates, too.

Many thanks for confirming this.

Obviously you wouldn't want to walk along there unless you had to, but pedestrian routers should apply a high cost to dual carriageway trunk road and no sidewalk.

If you're happy to change it, a fresh changeset is quicker and easier than using the reverter plugin in JOSM.

* streetside imagery, not aerial!

I found a "no pedestrians" sign in the aerial imagery just to the North of Airport Roundabout, but it's at an odd angle in some imagery. Sign and confirmation added in #135929841.

The smoothness=excellent tag was added by another user in 2015 and was probably true at the time. I think it was on a TdF route and got resurfaced for PR reasons. Feel free to remove the tag.