Is this an explicitly signed prohibition?

Hi, thanks for updating the map. The best way to tag this restriction is actually motor_vehicle=destination

osm.wiki/Tag:motor_vehicle%3Ddestination

Another user had already updated the tags, so there's nothing you need to do.

I've reset the tagging on crossings in Greater London where this seems to have happened, so there shouldn't be anything further for you to do.

Is there a sign explicitly prohibiting buses ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr17 ) from using the section of Vyne Road passing under Basingstoke Station? Access tags like bus=no represent legal access rights and restrictions.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You appear to have moved some bus stop nodes onto the highway. Nodes mapped as highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform represent the position where passengers board.

osm.wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform

The place where buses stop on the highway can be added as a public_transport=stop_position node.

osm.wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_position

The platform and the stop position can be linked together using a public_transport=stop_area relation.

osm.wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_area

Please ensure that you have read and understood the documentation before making further edits to bus stops. If you need any help, feel free to ask.

I have reverted your edit in osm.org/changeset/158570330

No problem, I've added it.

Thanks. If it's a private (unadopted) road, you could also add ownership=private

osm.wiki/Tag:ownership%3Dprivate

Thank you!

I think the problem may be the way in which RapiD is trying to synchronise the tagging of crossing nodes and ways. Unfortunately, it seems to be giving precedence to the tagging on the way over tagging on the node. I'll take a proper look later on and raise an issue on the RapiD project on Github if that's the case.

Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked (yes, I know RapiD suggests it, it's wrong). Removing this information is very unhelpful for pedestrian navigation.

Please stop mis-tagging signalised crossings as crossing=uncontrolled

The crossing represented by n33408745 is between two traffic lights. It's definitely controlled (that's what the traffic lights are for) and is now correctly tagged as crossing=traffic_signals

osm.org/node/33408745

Vandalism reverted.

I'm not sure why you deleted n8090874377

osm.org/node/8090874377/history

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I am not sure why you deleted the traffic signal node before the pedestrian crossing on Pall Mall East, but I have reverted your edit in osm.org/changeset/158385883

What were you trying to do?

OSM does not route anyone anywhere, that is done by third party routing software. Unless there is a real legal prohibition on using the ford, access=no and the other similar tags which you have added are incorrect and should be removed. Access tags reflect the legal position, not personal opinions on suitability for a mode of transport.

Adding flood_prone=yes seems quite reasonable.

You could also consider adding hazard=flooding and possibly depth, see:
osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahazard%3Dflooding
osm.wiki/Tag:ford%3Dyes

It can take time for routing software to update from OSM data - what are you using?

I think using dismount would potentially exclude people using a cycle as a mobility aid, or using a cycling profile in a router.

Perhaps something like bicycle=permissive + maxspeed:bicycle=walk + note=* might cover it?
osm.wiki/Key:maxspeed

As @8329 has not responded after 3 weeks, I have reverted this in osm.org/changeset/158202605

Thanks. They probably ought to be changed back to highway=service rather than the highway=unclassified another mapper used as well.

(Review requested)

That looks OK, but you might also want to split the service road at the gate and add access=private to the section behind the gate.

If appropriate, you could also add locked=yes to the gate.
osm.wiki/Key:locked

This is an improvement, but please do not put barrier=kerb nodes on footway=sidewalk ways, as this will seriously impede routing for wheelchair users.

From the wiki:
"Please do not add a barrier=kerb on a node joining the footways near the crossing (e.g. sidewalk footway joining with footway crossing the road). That would implicate that such kerbs block not only crossing the road, but also just using the sidewalk (i.e. without intending to cross the road), which is almost never the case - and which has a big implication for several classes of users (most notably, wheelchair users)."
osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb#On_a_node

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

I think it might be better tagged as something like landuse=recreation_ground + sport=cricket rather than as leisure=park.

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Drecreation_ground