Based on a complete misunderstanding of what the tags mean.

Could this do with foot=permissive as well, assuming that it's private land?

Thanks for adding these, but please bear in mind a couple of things, which are also in the MapWithAI instructions for this task:

1) "Once you have mapped a section of sidewalk, you should add a tag to the adjacent road to inform OpenStreetMap whether a sidewalk exists next to that road and which sides it is on. You can do that by applying one of the following sidewalk:both=separate, sidewalk:left=separate, sidewalk:right=separate to the adjacent road. If no sidewalk exists, you can use sidewalk=no."

2) Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked, as that removed information useful to pedestrian routers. By all means add crossing:markings=dots and crossing:signals=yes. If you see a crossing in the UK marked with dots and there's a solid white stop line adjacent to it, it's very, very unlikely that it is anything other than crossing=traffic_signals + crossing:markings=dots + crossing:signals=yes.

Although the iD editor and derivatives like Rapid suggest it, there's no point adding crossing:markings=yes, as this rather pointlessly tells data consumers that "this marked crossing is marked".

I've fixed the tagging errors with crossings and added sidewalk tags to the parent roads in osm.org/changeset/156987362

Reverted.

Vandalism reverted in osm.org/changeset/156980950

osm.org/user_blocks/16700

You described it as an error in your changeset comment, which it clearly wasn't. Did you at least flag the account?

It wasn't an "error", it was vandalism. Reported to DWG.

Grow up.

Not so much unmarked, as entirely fictitious and unhelpful to pedestrian routing in some cases.

Thanks!

For an overgrown path, it might be worth adding an obstacle=vegetation tag osm.wiki/Key:obstacle

@jpennycook thanks for spotting that! I've updated the access tags and added the signage in osm.org/changeset/156953892

Thanks for spotting that!

When a road has separately mapped cycleways or sidewalks, it's better to replace (in this case) cycleway:right=track with cycleway:right=separate.

The mapper who originally added the separate cycle track should have updated the tagging on Pevensey Road, Dittons Road and Station Road at the same time. I've updated it.

osm.wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dseparate

Looking at the traffic orders in The Gazette, there's an exemption for "maintenance, refuse and other essential vehicles", so it should probably be:
1) vehicle=private + bus=designated + bicycle=designated
2) access=private + bus=designated + bicycle=designated

I suspect the "no through route" signs are intended to stop council vehicles using the road as a short cut, rather than being directed at the general public.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2769434

The signage here is a little inconsistent, but that looks OK to me.

Assuming the available imagery is still current:

1) Entering from Boundary Lane: no entry sign with "except buses and cycles" on the left and "no through route except for buses and cycles on the right". A no entry sign should be interpreted as vehicle=no, with bus=designated + bicycle=designated exceptions. "No through route" would usually mean access=destination, but that doesn't really make sense with a no entry sign and the plate on the right isn't an authorised variant. Bing street side imagery of uncertain date.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?toWww=1&redig=5D8227B414074D5485818F590B616E23&cp=51.52195%7E0.039991&lvl=19.1&mo=om.1&pi=-19&style=x&dir=219.5

2) Exiting toward Boundary Lane: bus and cycle only blue sign, with a separate white "no through route except for buses and cycles" sign before it. I think the white sign can be ignored for practical purposes, so it should probably be access=no + bus=designated + bicycle=designated here. If there weren't' separately mapped sidewalks here, foot=yes might be needed. Mapillary imagery from Jan 2024.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=390804306768746

You appear to have tagged sections of the High Street/Steyne Road roundabout as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence 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 and have therefore reverted your edit.

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. It is disabled in the UK from StreetComplete v59.0 onwards.

Thanks for adding these crossings. In the UK, a crossing marked with dots and adjacent to a highway=traffic_signals node should be tagged as crossing=traffic_signals.

With appropriate tagging on these crossings, users of apps like StreetComplete will be able to check for accessibility features like sound and tactile signals.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for editing the map.

Usually addresses are stored in separate tags, which are easier for data consumers like routing software to process.

The person who initially mapped the buildings on the Newlands Estate put all the information into the name tag, which I have now "translated" into OSM tags. You didn't do anything wrong by following the existing mapping style with your edit.

I've also added some other information, like postcodes, to buildings and roads on the estate.

If you want to add more information to the map in your local area, the StreetComplete app is a great complement to the iD web editor which you used.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

Rather than adding the tag to Finsbury Street, this should really be mapped as a node (point) on the outline of the 20 Ropemaker Street building. You can connect it to Finsbury Street by adding a short length of service road.

There is a link to the wiki page for amenity=loading_dock below, but if you would like any help please feel free to ask.

osm.wiki/Tag:amenity=loading%20dock