Unfortunately, the amenity=place_of_worship tag, together with religion=christian is what makes it a church for rendering and data consumers, so removing it will remove the ✝️ symbol from the map.
osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dplace_of_worship

Although it us still tagged as building=church, that is what the building was constructed as,even if it is no longer a church. Please see osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Dchurch (which also explains use of landuse=religious).

Many thanks.

Although there is a dataset of Local Nature Reserves available under the Open Government Licence ( https://data.gov.uk/dataset/acdf4a9e-a115-41fb-bbe9-603c819aa7f7/local-nature-reserves-england ), I suspect the map data is "tainted" by Ordnance Survey's copyright.

I see that you have deleted the leisure=nature_reserve object Hempstead Meadows Local Nature Reserve
osm.org/way/558219858

Regardless of what maproulette may tell you, Local Nature Reserve is a formal legal status of a site in England & Wales. Natural England, the public body responsible, believes there to be an LNR here.
https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009913&SiteName=&countyCode=14&responsiblePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=

I have aggregated the disjoint parts of the Parkland Walk Local Nature Reserve into a boundary relation. The members tagged as natural=wood can be verified as such with reference to available imagery.
osm.org/changeset/81135073

While a leisure=park may indeed contain trees, it does not imply that it is actually woodland, which this is. I might choose to run through an urban park (typically more grass than trees) in poor light conditions, but not through woodland.

This objject would probably be better tagged as leisure=nature_reserve (describing its status), together with natural=wood (describing its physical characteristics). It may also be better as a 3 part multipolygon relationship, since Northwood Road is not part of the nature reserve.

Your assumption about tree growth is based on flawed assumptions. The trees are mostly to the sides of the former track bed, but as the track was actually lifted in 1972, quite a lot of growth has taken place since then, as Mapillary imagery quite clearly shows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_Walk
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.5754411&lng=-0.1403424&z=17&pKey=lDWUQpKtDz-35D7UyMtwZA&focus=photo

You say that are bothered about whether it is really a boundary=protected_area. The fact that the name contains the legal designation "Local Nature Reserve" perhaps provides a hint. These were established by Part III of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. There are also signs and information boards which would have clearly visible to the mapper who tagged it as such.

While a route for cycles and pedestrians obviously can be tagged as highway=path with access tags, "duck tagging" is the prevalent style. In GB, a pure cycleway would be highway=cycleway + foot=no, or part of a highway=cycleway + segregated=yes. A highway=cycleway + segregated=no is always a shared space in which the meaning " oops, here comes the cyclist and you pedestrians jump to the side" is quite incorrect: pedestrians have priority.
osm.wiki/Classic_vs_Alternative_tagging_schemes_in_use_in_the_United_Kingdom

Thanks.

Perhaps if you put barrier=yes + foot=yes for now and added a separate note asking a local mapper to check the barrier type and allowed access ?

Please could you explain why you believe that the natural=wood tag no longer applies to the Parkland Walk LNR? That area has been predominantly woodland every time I have walked, run, or cycled through it.

Also your change of highway=cycleway to highway=path seems rather arbitrary and at odds with how cycle routes in London are generally tagged. It coud arguably benefit from the addition of a smoothness=* tag, which I may add next time I go there.

If this is something like two sections of road separated by bollards or some other vehicle barrier, perhaps highway=cycleway or highway=footway with a node for any barrier?

The T&Cs for the site used in the website=* tag for these edits seem pretty clear that this use of their copyrighted data is prohibited.
https://www.chefonline.co.uk/terms-and-conditions

Hi, thanks for updating this business in OpenStreetMap.

There is a problem with your use of https://www.chefonline.co.uk/ as a data source, which is that the data are subject to copyright.

ChefOnline's Terms and Conditions at https://www.chefonline.co.uk/terms-and-conditions make it quite clear that "No material from the site may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posed, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your non-commercial use only, provided that you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices."

Please revert all the changes which you have made using this data source.

Please also read
osm.wiki/Copyright

Hi, thanks for updating this business in OpenStreetMap.

There is a problem with your use of https://www.chefonline.co.uk/ as a data source, which is that the data are subject to copyright.

ChefOnline's Terms and Conditions at https://www.chefonline.co.uk/terms-and-conditions make it quite clear that "No material from the site may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posed, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your non-commercial use only, provided that you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices."

Please revert all the changes which you have made using this data source.

Please also read
osm.wiki/Copyright

Hi, thanks for updating this business in OpenStreetMap.

There is a problem with your use of https://www.chefonline.co.uk/ as a data source, which is that the data are subject to copyright.

ChefOnline's Terms and Conditions at https://www.chefonline.co.uk/terms-and-conditions make it quite clear that "No material from the site may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posed, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your non-commercial use only, provided that you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices."

Please revert all the changes which you have made using this data source.

Please also read
osm.wiki/Copyright

Hi, thanks for updating this business in OpenStreetMap.

There is a problem with your use of https://www.chefonline.co.uk/ as a data source, which is that the data are subject to copyright.

ChefOnline's Terms and Conditions at https://www.chefonline.co.uk/terms-and-conditions make it quite clear that "No material from the site may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posed, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your non-commercial use only, provided that you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices."

Please revert all the changes which you have made using this data source.

Please also read
osm.wiki/Copyright

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Adding three nodes with tourism=attraction is not particularly useful, as it gives no information about what the purported attraction actually is.

Please read
osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dattraction

If you need any help. please ask.

Thanks for fixing those. I have now given up in that area. See osm.org/changeset/80558246 for a particularly egregious example.

You're quite right about the work not having started yet, seeing the traffic order made me a little overoptimistic.

There were land surveyors working on the section of Surrey Canal Walk east of Summer Road, so work may be due to start soon. I'll try check on progress whenever I cycle down to Beckenham Place Park lake.

Mapillary images for C35 from south to north are in the process of being uploaded and should be available soon.

For routing purposes, the cycleway is one way, which is why the footway (obviously not one way is mapped separately). You have also deleted give way nodes (TSRGD diagram 1003B) from the cycleway. Reverted.

You appear to have deleted several shops and converted a mixed-use building to a landuse polygon. Reverted in
osm.org/changeset/80682157

You appear to have deleted several shops, changeset fully reverted in
osm.org/changeset/80682157

Many thanks.