You appear to have tagged a section of the A4174 South of Siston Hill Roundabout 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.

Having looked at the POIs imported within the UK, these all appear to duplicate existing objects. I can see no value in adding an unnamed amenity=bar or amenity=restaurant node next to a named pub.

I can see even less value in mis-tagging a bus-stop as a bar, apparently just because it had the word "Oyster" in its name.

I have reverted the remainder of the UK part of this changeset in osm.org/changeset/146070139

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please keep your changesets local, as a changeset spanning two continents makes it hard to review.

osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

I note that you have not given a source for your import. This is potentially a problem, as there is no way to determine if your source(s) are compatible with OpenStreetMap.

osm.wiki/Copyright

Why did you remove the highway=trunk tag from the A299 Chelsfield Tunnel in Kent, UK? This has nothing to do with oysters and would break routing, a real world use of OSM data. I have repaired this in osm.org/changeset/146069283

The non-existent park you created as a POI has also been removed.

It wasn't, now it's gone. Find a lavatory wall and some crayons instead.

Reverted.

Reverted.

Reverted.

Grow up.

Reverted #dwg

Several years on, so am I :-)

I took a a look at a bus route local to me on Busmiles earlier this week.

It uses OSM Carto tiles as a background map via Leaflet, but I do not think it directly uses OSM routing data or bus route relations (OSM is certainly not mentioned as a source at https://busmiles.uk/legal ).

In some cases, it draws a straight line between bus stops. In others, it does appear to follow the courses of roads in OSM, but I suspect these may be provided by a third party.

The islands may have been removed (I updated the crossing node with StreetComplete in December 2021), but why did you also delete the turn restriction relations at this junction?

Restrictions restored in osm.org/changeset/145879492

#DWG

Thanks for updating this and other damaging "test edits" by @KaneH.

Please don't use OSM for testing - and if you say you'll revert something, then do it.

I have reverted this and your other edits to n2088449681

#DWG

Please explain why you are making these edits and what you hope to achieve by doing so.

The bus station was already accessible to buses. By changing it to access=bus (an undocumented value which is unlikely to be recognised by routing software), you may have just made it accessible to all transport modes, which is extremely unhelpful. Recognised values for the access=* key are listed at the link below.

osm.wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values

The bus=* key should actually be bus=designated or bus=yes rather than bus=only, which I have now updated.

osm.wiki/Key:bus

You have changed the roads from highway=busway to highway=unclassified (presumably tagging for the renderer). Neither of these appears to be correct and I have changed it back to highway=service.

osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbusway

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

The turn restrictions which you added were unnecessary, as the streets are already one way.

Repaired in osm.org/changeset/145878108

Please DO NOT make any further edits to bus infrastructure until you understand how OSM access tagging works.

It's a residential street with no sidewalk, but also no additional restrictions for motor vehicles. It's almost the opposite of a living street, as there is no consideration of or provision for pedestrians.

In the UK, a highway=living_street is signed as "Home Zone", "Share space", or "Quiet Lane".

They are fairly uncommon - there is only one Home Zone in Newham which I can think of (although, Newham being Newham, the 30mph speed limit there tends to upset validators).

osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr27-tc1

Thanks for updating this.

We have a lot of this, which is essentially tagging for the renderer and doesn't work properly for routing where there isn't a highway=footway/cycleway way.

However, rather than deleting the surrounding footway areas, could I suggest replacing them with area:highway=footway (areas around a linear way) or area:highway=traffic_island?

osm.wiki/Tag:area:highway%3Dfootway
osm.wiki/Proposal:Street_area#traffic_island

Thanks for updating the speed limit.

The access was already tagged correctly: access=private + bus=yes means that only buses (and vehicles explicitly authorised by the operator) may use the road.

access=bus has no defined meaning and might be ignored by routing software entirely, effectively making the road accessible to all. This is the opposite of your stated intent.

Access tags corrected.

Reverted.

Reverted.

Again, you have deleted a restriction relation which did allow buses to proceed ahead and replaced it with a new restriction which prohibits this.

Please don't delete relation unless you fully understand what they mean, particularly the except=* key.

osm.wiki/Relation:restriction

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/145759312