Don't worry, that quest seems to catch a lot of people out and possibly only in a UK context.

Thanks for updating this, I'd meant to do it ages ago.

Is this node potentially a duplicate of the adjacent building?
osm.org/way/226271440

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

The building=house polygons should only represent the geometry of the buildings, not the surrounding land within the property boundary. You can add walls, fences and hedges along the boundary where these are present.

If you would like any help with this, please feel free to ask.

Why change landuse=grass areas to landuse=meadow when the areas are clearly not used in a way which resembles a meadow, i.e. for hay or grazing?

The wiki description for landuse=grass suggests that these areas were already tagged correctly: "A tag for a smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in the middle of a dual carriageway."

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass
osm.wiki/Tag:landuse=meadow

Np problem, and thanks. It's one which seems to catch a lot of people out.

Has the School Streets order affecting Pears Road near its junction with Inwood Road now been revoked?

I can't find anything more recent than The London Borough Of Hounslow (School Streets) Order 2021 and The London Borough Of Hounslow (School Streets) (Amendment No. 1) Order 2022.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3920374
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4207112

LB Hounslow's website also lists this as a current and permanent scheme.
https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2157/school_streets/3

Thanks for updating this, but please note that you don't need to add access=no to a highway=footway. The default access already excludes all transport modes except pedestrian, so all adding access=no does is to cause the default OSM Carto map tiles to render it in grey instead of red.

Unfortunately, the iD editor presents a selection of access rules which are generally irrelevant to footways.

Removed foot=no in osm.org/changeset/143408514

Removed foot=no restrictions in osm.org/changeset/143408222

You appear to have tagged a section of Canterbury 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.

You appear to have tagged sections of Daresbury Expressway and Chester 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.

You appear to have tagged sections of Ordsall Lane and Hampson 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, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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.

How does adding crossing:markings=yes to a crossing=marked node help anyone? Is this not just tagging for a validator?

If you're using Bing aerial imagery, in most cases you should be able to see what type of crossing it is and tag appropriately, e.g.
zebra - crossing:markings=zebra;dots + crossing_ref=zebra
pelican/puffin - crossing:markings=dots

osm.wiki/Key:crossing:markings

You appear to have tagged a section of Blachford Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm cannot find any street side imagery with an OSM-compatible licence to check that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. If there are no TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, then it is very unlikely that a prohibition exists.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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.

You appear to have tagged a section of Colney Lane 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, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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.

@Cebderby It is very rare to find a highway tagged with foot=no by the StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians quest where there is a real (and signed) prohibition.

@Falsernet No, there isn't. Removed in osm.org/changeset/143112686

@TeaKayB Bing Streetside imagery does not show 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, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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!

You appear to have tagged a section of Hampstead 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, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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.

You appear to have tagged a section of the roundabout at the junction of Ruislip Road East and Argyle 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, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
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.