If this is a decorative cascade, it would be better to map it as amenity=fountain + fountain=decorative than waterway=waterfall, as it isn't part of a stream or river.

osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfountain
osm.wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dwaterfall

Just a quick update on this - I'm working through Greater London a borough at a time and replacing sidewalk=separate and sidewalk=none. So far, Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Westminster and the City should be complete.

At some point, changing cycleway=separate to cycleway:$side=separate might be worth doing. It should also help to fix more of the paid "mapping" done as part of the TfLCID conflation fiasco.

Is the motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (Mo-Fr 07:00-19:00) restriction still effective?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for adding this.

An alternative way to tag this might be as tunnel=building_passage, depending on how the road goes under the building.
osm.wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage

Thanks for updating this.

You could also change highway=path (where routers have to guess access) with highway=footway, which implies foot=yes and everything else=no.

You appear to have tagged a section of Vestry 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. 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. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
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.

As adding foot=no broke pedestrian routing between Nile Street and East Road, it has been reversed in osm.org/changeset/145183105

As this is presumably a privately owned access road to a retail park, access=customers might be a better fit on both the gates and the roads.

Non-existent pedestrian prohibitions removed in osm.org/changeset/144890630

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/144890326

Does this planting look like it's intended to be sustainable urban drainage? Last time I looked on the wiki, there didn't seem to be anything appropriate to tag the drainage aspect with.

You appear to have tagged sections of Ring 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. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
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.

Thanks for updating the test tracks. Although the previous tagging of highway=service + service=driveway was clearly wrong, they're not really highway=track (used for minor land-access roads that are not considered part of the general-purpose road network). I've changed the test tracks to highway=raceway, which is probably a better fit.

Thanks! I had meant to go back and resolve that note ages ago.

In which case, it was correctly tagged as historic=cannon, which I have restored. It is not and never has been an installation artwork.

osm.wiki/Tag:historic=cannon

Please do not tag for the renderer just because something is not currently rendered in the OSM Carto tiles.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

If you would like to suggest an appropriate rendering for historic=cannon objects, you could raise a new issue on the project at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues

Yes, they are. You could have added separate polygons for the bridge piers rather than removing building=* tags from buildings.

Tagging for the renderer is not a reason to delete an existing object along with its history.

Sorry, that's a ludicrous argument.

From the wiki: "The highway=residential tag is used on roads that provide access to, or within, residential areas but which are not normally used as through routes."

St Katharine's way does not pass through or abut a landuse=residential polygon. It's not a residential street.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding this public footpath.

If you're mapping other public rights of way in this area, you might find this tool useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/chelmsford/south-hanningfield/

Thanks! I usually do update the sidewalk tags to sidewalk:$side=separate when I come across them in the course of doing other edits. I wonder if it's the sort of think which would work as a Maproulette project?

While most instances of sidewalk=separate would probably be better as sidewalk:both=separate, I am a little dubious about doing this as an automated edit. It usually needs checking with aerial imagery.

Using sidewalk:both=separate on many streets with oneway=yes, particularly dual carriageways and links at complex junctions may be incorrect, as these are more likely to be sidewalk:left=separate + sidewalk:right=no