Please don't use the live OpenStreetMap database for testing.

I realise that this is a changeset from 12 years ago, but is there any reason we really need motor_vehicle=designated on these roads? I think that's implicit on every public road which doesn't have explicitly signed restrictions.

The weight restriction signs in this area indicate that buses and HGVs over 7.5t are prohibited on Ranelagh Bridge, not the Westbourne Terrace bridge. In the context of many of your other edits, this looks like another instance deliberate vandalism. The question remains, why were you so keen to sabotage OSM in 2015?

Thanks. I've added some address details from FHRS
osm.wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_Scheme

Is the neighbouring Sainsbury's branch to the SE now closed? If it is, you could use lifecycle prefixes on some of its tags
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

No problem.

There are a few places like this where we have normal cycle route signage, but which go across private land. Although it's unlikely the landowners would just revoke access, they could lock the gates without needing a traffic order and users wouldn't have any recourse.

At the other end of The Greenway, the road works on High Street have a TTRO (temporary traffic regulation order), but as far as I can tell the related closure on The Greenway itself doesn't.

If that's an ungated private service road on an industrial estate, you might be better off with access=destination (no need for foot or bicycle tags) and ownership=private. That way, routing software will know that business premises on that road are reachable for deliveries etc., but that the road is not a public right of way.

I've updated the wiki to reflect this, as it's a bit counterintuitive when bus station operators use standard traffic signs, but with unsigned exceptions at their discretion.

If you have a bus station service road with a speed limit under 20mph, you can generally assume that it's not a public highway, as non-standard speed limits on public roads require DfT permission.

Again, this is a privately owned bus station rather than a public road where the strict TSRGD definition of diagram 616 is a little looser. The bus station (my local bus station, as it happens) is also accessed by maintenance and cleaning vehicles, therefore vehicle=private.

There's no need for access=no here and certainly no justification to add it however one interprets a no entry sign.

NB On a public road, TSRGD diagram 616 is indeed vehicle=no, unless there's an exception plate or exemption in the traffic order which would alter this.

It's vehicle=private because it's a privately owned road - it is used by TfL service vehicles.

access=no is just wrong

The Greenway is owned by Thames Water and is not a public right of way or a highway maintained at public expense. That's why access is tagged as permissive rather than designated. Unless you have an OSM-compatible source showing that a legal right of way exists, please revert. Thanks.

Liar.

You did add a very small number foot=no tags, e.g. osm.org/way/184658172/history/9

You may also infer the UK mapping community's general attitude to foot=use_sidepath from the fact that there are only 72 instances of that tag in the UK, 10% of which are on nodes (no idea what was intended there).
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/foot=use_sidepath#overview

I'd like to thank you for all the realignments and the separate sidewalks which you added. Those are very helpful and I'm sure everyone using OSM data here will benefit.

You'll see that the changes I made subsequently didn't lose any of that. I removed instances foot foot=no and replaced foot=use_sidepath with sidewalk:$side=separate.

I also made a few minor splits in footway=crossing ways so that they didn't form T-junctions with footway=sidewalk ways. This makes it a lot easier to survey and add accessibility features and obstacles like kerbs and tactile paving with tools like StreetComplete.

If my tone grew more abrasive through successive changeset comments, I apologise. Discovering a large number of non-existent pedestrian prohibitions on the carriageways of major roads did not entirely fill me with joy.

For a discussion about the frequently incorrect addition of foot=no through a StreetComplete quest which is now disabled in the UK, see:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/poll-should-streetcomplete-disable-the-are-pedestrians-forbidden-to-walk-on-this-road-without-sidewalk-here-quest-in-the-uk/118387

The fundamental issue here is that access tags in OSM are supposed to represent legal permissions and restrictions. In that context for public highways in the UK:
foot=no requires explicit signage
foot=use_sidepath doesn't exist

Having said all that, many thanks for the separate sidewalks you added on some of the main roads in the City of London. Those will be helpful to people like me who use OSM-derived pedestrian routing applications.

The wiki page foe foot=use_sidepath clearly said, even before the edit you quote "In some countries it is illegal for pedestrians to use a road if a parallel compulsory sidepath exists."

This situation never arises in the UK.

Anything in the Highway Code with "should" or "should not" is guidance. Pedestrians still have an absolute legal right to walk on the carriageway unless they are explicitly forbidden.

Also, highway=living_street in the UK only applies when explicitly signed as a "Home Zone". This is extremely unlikely to be the case on a non-residential street in a city centre and certainly isn't the case here.

osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#881

Air Street isn't signed as a "Home Zone", so it's not a highway=living_street

osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#881

I'm not entirely convinced that a single crossing island justifies the creation of an 80 metre stretch of pretend dual carriageway.

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thanks for adding it to OSM.