You appear to have tagged a section of road between Putney Heath and Treville Street as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. I also note that there is on street parking here, which is generally incompatible with a pedestrian prohibition (you can park, but not get out). Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged a section of Didcot Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

No response, so reverted in osm.org/changeset/143101040

Parts of the cycle track are visible in both Bing aerial and streetside imagery.

building tags reinstated as building=yes in osm.org/changeset/143077371

By removing the building=* tags, you have removed the buildings from the map. If there is a more appropriate building type than industrial (e.g. commercial or retail), please change the tag value.

We can't use Google's imagery for OpenStreetMap, however there are two imagery layers available in iD which appear to confirm the building's removal.

It is shown as a building and labelled "Gas Holder Station" in OS OpenData StreetView (April 2016)

The label and building are both absent in OS OpenMap Local (April 2023)

Thanks. The user who added it has made one other edit in the UK, adding a bus station in the middle of Woodford tube station. This has now been deleted.

Deleted in osm.org/changeset/143017748

@DaveF Of course it isn't. Removed in osm.org/changeset/143049541

Many thanks - and keep up the good work!

You appear to have tagged a section of Queensway as foot=no in
response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic
order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

Real pedestrian prohibitions are quite rare in the UK, other than on roads where pedestrians are implicitly prohibited due to being tagged with highway=motorway or motorroad=yes.

As real pedestrian prohibitions on normal roads in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged a section of Snakes Lane East as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that such a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions are quite rare in the UK, other than on roads where pedestrians are implicitly prohibited due to being tagged with highway=motorway or motorroad=yes.

As real pedestrian prohibitions on normal roads in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged a section of Regent Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe and prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions are quite rare in the UK, other than on roads where pedestrians are implicitly prohibited due to being tagged with highway=motorway or motorroad=yes.

As real pedestrian prohibitions on normal roads in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Thanks.

Is there really a legal restriction prohibiting pedestrians here?

I can't see any diagram 625.1 "Pedestrians prohibited" signs in the Bing streetside imagery.

Has the shared pavement cycle track along Priory Chase been physically removed? If not, why have you deleted it?

Adding nodes with the undocumented sidewalk=yes + continuous=yes tags was of little value to data consumers. Failing to attach the nodes to their parent highway ways reduced that value to zero.

Please could you explain what your source "ley1" actually is and confirm that it has an OpenStreetMap compatible licence?

Unless the building no longer exists, please do not remove a building=* tag. If you want to add landuse=*, please add it as a separate way.

Updated in osm.org/changeset/142626735

Don't worry about it, absolutely no harm done!