I didn't know you had two accounts, thanks for letting me know.

I see you have also re-added your fantasy park around Cranmer Close again.

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/78831259

Are you absolutely sure that:
1) A cricket pitch would be that small, surfaced with astroturf and named "Essex Spartans AFO"?
2) Hutton Kitchens has really moved from Radford Way to the back of Argos on High Street, but has not changed it address?
3) An untagged node near Radford Court has now become part of the highway=* way for High Street?

#DWG please review this user

Yet you have created four separate areas which are the same size as football pitches and are certainly too small to play cricket upon. If you look at other imagery, for example Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta or Bing aerial imagery, you can clearly see the markings of two soccer pitches. The batting square has also been mapped already, see osm.org/way/639226363

Hi, many thanks for mapping these and all the rest of your mapping around Greenwich. I'm surprised they hadn't already been mapped.

However, unless they have been changed recently, they are mandatory cycle lanes marked by a solid white line (TSRGD diagram 1049B) together with an the upright blue sign (diagram 959.1). They're not shared lanes with motor vehicles as it is an offence contrary to s. 36 RTA 1988 to drive in one.

I would be inclined to tag this as cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:lane=exclusive instead. The second tag is optional and less widely used, but I use it to distinguish it from an advisory cycle lane (marked by a broken white line, to which I would add cycleway:left:lane=advisory).

OSM Wiki entry for cycle lanes
osm.wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_lanes

Mapillary imagery of part of the cycle lane from April 2017
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/A6j9d7B5vyn9XXi79sbr6Q

Official reference for the lane markings and upright traffic signs, Schedule 9 TSRGD 2016
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made#schedule-9-part-4

As you state, they are "part of" Queens Park, therefore they are not 3 separate parks in their own right. You have also erased the information that two of these areas are covered by trees (natural=wood) and one by grass (landuse=grass).

What would be really helpful would be if you were to map the extent of Queens Park as a single area and leave the more descriptive tagging of areas within the park unchanged, or better still, improved in accuracy and detail.

Mill Meadows Nature Reserve already exists (see osm.org/way/639530686 ), as the area enclosing the three areas of natural=wood which you have edited. Your edit has removed the information that those areas are covered by trees.

Please read:
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dnature_reserve
osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/78814230

It's a building which contains a swimming pool. There was no need to delete the building=yes tag for the building, as the building is still there.

Please also note that the wiki states:
"The tag leisure=swimming_pool should only be used for the water area of the swimming pool. A facility containing one or more swimming pools (mainly focussed on swimming as a sport) should be tagged leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming."
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool

As you say, they are "part of" Queens Park, therefore they are not parks in their own right. If you believe that the previous tagging of them as landuse=scrub is incorrect, please tag them as something useful and meaningful. See osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dgrassland for some possibilities.

No, your repeated vandalism is NOT "ok". This imaginary park does not exist. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/78812808 #DWG

@EdLoach probably "inspired" by Pokémon Go. Your corrections were undone in osm.org/changeset/78703818 and osm.org/changeset/78703848 (I've reverted the latter).

If this area is part of the park, then it was already correctly tagged by another mapper as landuse=forest, information which your edit destroyed.

Only the outline of the park as a whole should be tagged as leisure=park - please read the tag description at osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

OpenStreetMap is not a game and is used by people other than Pokémon Go players. Please read osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/78740209

If these areas are part of the park, then they were already correctly tagged by another mapper as natural=wood and landuse=grass, information which your edit destroyed.

Only the outline of the park as a whole should be tagged as leisure=park - please read the tag description at osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

OpenStreetMap is not a game and is used by people other than Pokémon Go players. Please read osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/78740093

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/78739947

If these areas are part of the park, then they were already correctly tagged by another mapper as natural=scrub, information which your edit destroyed.

Only the outline of the park as a whole should be tagged as leisure=park - please read the tag description at osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

OpenStreetMap is not a game and is used by people other than Pokémon Go players. Please read osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/78739816

That's fine, although the access tags you have added aren't really necessary, they are unlikely to confuse routing software or renderers. However access=yes ("All" in iD), means wide open to all transport modes.

For a footway/pavement/sidewalk in the UK (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk), the default assumed by routers and in law (s. 72 Highway Act 1835 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 ) is:
foot=yes
+ bicycle=no
+ motor_vehicle=no
+ horse=no
(for the purposes of the 1835 act, both a bicycle and a motor vehicle are a "carriage").

It's also worth looking at osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom for the default access restrictions on different types of highway=*

I know the iD editor presents all of these as options in the "Allowed Access" section, but they only need to be completed where access is other than the default. A footway might have more restrictive access permissions for foot=* e.g. permissive, customers, or private.

The unnecessary tags may well get changed sooner or later, not least because quality assurance tools like Osmose and some editing software will report highway=* + access=yes and highway=footway + foot=yes as tagging issues.

It may have been to [sic] small, but I doubt it extends to the centre line of Crown Road or across Norsey Road.

If you mean the park which you have created on top of Cranmer Close and Walsingham Way, possibly because it doesn't exist? I'm fairly sure that a chunk of suburban Billericay hasn't been demolished, leaving only disconnected stubs of Marlowe Close and Burleigh Close.

OSM isn't a game and, if you feel the need to cheat, you're not really treating Pokemon GO as a game either.

Thanks, I think that you're right mapping the footway/sidewalk from the segregated cycle track here, rather than mapping it as a single way with segregated=yes. The narrow cycle track has a different surface, is effectively one way and is separated from the footway by barriers in some places. I have extended this westwards from Bedfont Lane to the end of the track on the service road between 529 and 531 Staines Road.

Don't worry, a few of my friends are Pokemon GO players, I know it's only a small minority.