Access updated in osm.org/changeset/156825989

For a bus station, you might want something more like:

vehicle=no + bus=designated

rather than psv=yes, as it's more specific and excludes taxi/PHV using non-UK specific routers.

The existing motor_vehicle=designated tag (not added by you) is almost certainly wrong and should be deleted. I think the person who added it mistakenly thought that it meant "for designated vehicles only", but what it actually means is "designated as a right of way for all motor vehicles".

I can't find any street-level imagery, but if the sign at the entrance from Station approach is no entry with an "except buses" plate, the above should work. If it's something different I'll try to help you to find the best tagging here.

I have also added a section to the Busmiles.uk page on the OSM wiki.
osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk#Tagging_service_roads_in_bus_stations

PRoW data and mapping progress for Eastry Rural is at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/dover/eastry-rural/

No, it's clearly designated as a public bridleway and was tagged as such. What you would like it to be is immaterial.

Please familiarise yourself with access rights on public rights of way in England and how they are tagged in OpenStreetMap before editing any more PRoWs.
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

I have reverted your edit and changed it from highway=path -> bridleway

The sidewalk:both=separate tag goes on the parent street, not on the sidewalk. Your tagging effectively meant that the separately mapped sidewalks had separate sidewalks on both sides. I've fixed your mistake.

If you persist in making bad edits in East London and do not engage with changeset comments, the matter will be escalated to DWG.

Please don't add tag for the router/renderer.

As someone who actually lives in East London and uses OSM-based pedestrian routing software, armchair mappers adding decorative sidewalks and pretend crossings is unhelpful.

Several of these crossings are only half crossings, with a lowered kerb and tactile paving (which you didn't add, despite it being obvious in the aerial imagery). The fictitious parts of the crossings have been deleted following a survey on 2024-09-18.

Mapping for the renderer/router is generally discouraged. Adding fictitious crossings which involve traversing an unmodified kerb and obstruction by parked cars are NOT helpful for real world pedestrian navigation.

It's in the wiki:
access= yes "The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."
osm.wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values

The motor_vehicle=private tag which was there looks dubious to me.

I would suggest either access=destination (you can only use it to get there, but not use it as a through route/short cut) or access=permissive (no right of way, but nobody signed or physical restriction).

The bits of road behind ExCeL which are unadopted probably ought to have at least access=permissive + ownership=private

If there's a signed diversion of National Cycle Route 13 along Sandstone/Seagull while the dock side is closed in front of the ExCeL extension, they might need bicycle=permissive as well

Why do you believe that there is now a legal right of way (which is what access=yes means) over this section of the privately owned and maintained Seagull Lane? Have London Borough of Newham adopted the road(s)?

That's great, done. osm.org/changeset/156723183

If you want to add other details to streets locally, like surfaces and cycle lanes, with less pain than the iD editor, it's worth taking at look at the StreetComplete app.

I can't find the actual traffic order or any recent imagery with an OSM-compatible licence, but if the scheme was implemented as proposed on the consultation you would need to do the following:

1) split Wheelers lane near its junction with Redehall Road
2) make the split segment one way by adding oneway=yes (you might need to reverse the direction of the segment)
3) if contraflow bicycle access is allowed, add oneway:bicycle=yes

If you wanted to upload street view imagery of all the highway changes made in this scheme, you could use the Mapillary mobile app.

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I only noticed it because someone keeps adding fantasy power line nearby.

Thanks for confirming - I've updated the speed limit. It may take a couple of weeks before it "works" on Plotaroute. I'll take a look at the entry restriction later.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding surface information to the road. That's useful information which some routing software will use.

I noticed that the road is tagged (not by you) with a maximum speed of 3 mph. Unless it's a privately owned road with a very low advisory limit, can I assume that this is a typo for 30 mph? This may be the reason some routing software could apply a high cost to this road and prefer an alternative.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/156673796

Are crossings like osm.org/node/12156384359 really crossings in any meaningful sense, because the Bing imagery shows nothing: no lowered kerb, no tactile paving, etc.
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.540076%7E0.007217&lvl=22.0&mo=om.1&pi=-22.2&style=x&dir=60.8

If there are residential streets where separate sidewalks only "work" when fictitious crossings are mapped for the renderer/router, that is a good argument not to map them. For routing purposes, tagging with sidewalk=both and mapping only the real crossings as nodes should suffice.

Is substance=gas_topology here a typo/autocomplete error?

osm.org/way/1117703091

As you added sidewalk=yes to the parent roadand removed the information about a shared cycle route on the sidewalk you deleted, I fear your understanding may need a little refreshment from the wiki.

Separate sidewalks are mapped in a lot of places on OSM. The one you deleted had been there since 2014. People generally add them because they're useful for pedestrian an cycle routing. Knowing on which side of the road these features are is useful, as is the detailed information about accessibility like tactile paving and lowered kerbs.

You may think they map the mapping look messy. I would remind you that you should not map for the renderer. Deleting a feature which exists in order to "improve" the appearance of a particular map rendering is vandalism and likely to be escalated to DWG if it is repeated.

Of course I wouldn't add separate sidewalks to every street, I add the appropriate sidewalk=* tags to the parent street if mapping separate sidewalks is inappropriate. If you take a look at the streets around the roundabout, you will see that most of the available ways of tagging sidewalks have been added. On a lot of residential streets, which generally don't have crossings, they're effectively useless decoration, often added as a result of ill-advised projects using a tasking manager.

A shared pedestrian and cycle track on the sidewalk of a main road is commonly mapped as a separate way and the only justification to delete it is that it does not exist.

It does seem very odd that a mapper who spends so much time correctly adding access tags to non-public highways should be so ready to break cycle routing.

Really? What is sidewalk=yes supposed to mean? Don't break pedestrian and cycle routing just because you don't understand it, or you think the dotted red lines make the map rendering look untidy. It;s vandalism.

Also, I notice that you did not take the trouble to add tags to the parent highway to preserve the information you deleted. Adding undocumented nonsense like sidewalk=yes in a later changeset suggests that you don't know what you're doing.

Reverted, obviously.