(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this. I visited this last week on a black history running tour and meant to check afterwards if it had been mapped.

The crossing you tagged as crossing:markings=dashes is an unmarked crossing. The markings next to it are give way road markings and are completely unrelated to the crossing. Pedestrian crossings over public highways in the UK are not marked with dashes.

If you don't understand what you're mapping, please don't map it.

osm.org/node/12248181792

Please do not change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked

When I mapped n5605100328, I knew what I was doing. Remember: experienced local mappers know more than you do.

osm.org/node/5605100328/history

Please don't tag for the renderer.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

You changed a crossing=traffic_signals node to crossing=uncontrolled. WHY?

I'd noticed - and thanks!

I somehow missed parking:*:zone=* when I added parking tags here. Eventually I'll get around to adding it for the local CPZs, as it should make adding parking:*:conditional=* rules consistently a bit easier.

I was also thinking of changing the parking=lane polygons which I added to the undocumented area:highway=parking and moving the parking tags back to the parent highway where routing software can see them.

How can a crossing between two traffic lights be "uncontrolled"?

osm.org/node/7048005907

Please don't use the public OpenStreetMap database to record personal/private notes. I have reverted your edit.

If you want to add personal information on top of OpenStreetMap tiles, you could look at the uMap website:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/

Hello, @MKBE_'s latest sock puppet. How short is this temporary road closure?

Mis tagging all these signalised crossings as crossing=marked was particularly unhelpful. It's far more useful to a pedestrian, particularly a visually impaired one, to know what sort of crossing it is. Had you not done this, users of apps like StreetComplete might by now have added information about accessibility features like the presence or absence of sound and tactile indications.

Adding crossing:markings=yes is an iD-ism, but does it really help to tell data consumers that a marked crossing is marked, particularly when the crossing:markings=dots are clearly visible in aerial imagery.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Although redundantly adding oneway=no does no harm, roads in OSM are two way by default. If you are experiencing unexpected behaviour from routing software, this is unlikely to solve your problem.

osm.wiki/Key:oneway#oneway_=_no

I've reformatted the address and added your phone number, as well as adding office=company. You may wish to change this to a more appropriate value, see osm.wiki/Key:office

I am not convinced that the foot=no tag which you added to Highdown Rise in 2022 represents a real and explicitly signed prohibition either. That would make both Highdown Gardens and The Highdown unreachable on foot from Littlehampton Road. It would also make the pedestrian crossing over both carriageways of Littlehampton Road at the end of Highdown Rise a little pointless.

Adding non-existent restrictions in order to influence a single consumer of OSM data is likely to have adverse effects on other data consumers.
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_router

If I were determined to tick off Titnore Lane in CityStrides, I would probably wait for a Sunday morning in May-July and go out very early. I also use CityStrides and I do appreciate how frustrating it can be to have streets which are difficult to complete.

Are there really "pedestrians prohibited" signs (TSRGD diagram 625.1) at all entrances to this section of Titnore Lane, together with a traffic order implementing this?

Access tags like foot=no in OpenStreetMap are intended only to record the legal situation, not personal opinions on safety or convenience. If you wish to reduce the likelihood that pedestrian routers would use this route, adding the 60mph National Speed Limit might have been more useful.

osm.wiki/Key:access

The section of Titnore Lane between the access road to Swallows' Return and the pedestrian crossing island SW of St. Barnabas House has a pavement/sidewalk, so there is clearly no pedestrian prohibition here. I have updated this section in osm.org/changeset/157408024

You have set Exley lane as access=private, which seems unlikely for a road serving the municipal Elland Cemetery.

The imagery which you have access to may be recent than the Bing street side imagery which I can see, but the entry point to Exley lane at (53.689760,-1.840510) has the following signage:

No motor vehicles except access (TSRGD diagram 619) next to the carriageway, which means motor_vehicle=destination NOT access=private

There is also a sign on the sidewalk/pavement indicating a shared pedestrian and cycle route, so bicycle=designated + foot=designated needs to be added.

What evidence do you have that this road is even privately owned, let alone private access?

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=53.689744%7E-1.840516&lvl=20.0&mo=om.1&pi=-5.2&style=x&dir=340.3

Is The Marld and its network of side streets really a private enclave (with locked gates, intercoms or security at all three entry points)?

The original access=permissive was probably wrong, but if it's signed as a "private road", then ownership=private + access=destination seems more likely.

Thanks for updating this and clearing my notes around the castle.

The Automated Edits Code of Conduct may disagree with you here.
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

"This policy also applies to substantial changes made using 'find and replace' or similar functions within standard editors such as JOSM."

"Even if you are going to change tagging of a large number of objects systematically and don't think that it is an automated edit which falls under this code of conduct, it is still a good idea to discuss your changes in advance."

Also, if you're just reducing the node count of objects, what is the reason for the ways which have been deleted and created in this changeset?

The geographical extent of this changeset makes it impossible to review the changes with QA tools like OsmCha.

When and where was this automated edit discussed?

I think you may have conflated the physical address of One American Acre with the address of its operator.

Is that address really recognised by USPS, for that specific location rather than a government office in DC? If it is, there may be a way to record it, but addr:* ought to be of some practical use in locating the object.