Are you sure that you are not-conflating private ownership with a legal access prohibition for pedestrians here?

It is very unlikely that Strand Lane is "cars only" as there is no such restriction in the UK. It was already tagged motor_vehicle=private by another mapper.

As I have not been to Strand Lane since I was a student at KCL 30 years ago, I have added a note for someone to check this - osm.org/note/4643776

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect legal restrictions, not matters of opinion.

Although walking along Blackfriars Underpass may not seem an attractive proposition, there are no signs explicitly prohibiting it and therefore no prohibition. Pedestrians are explicitly prohibited by signs at both ends of the Upper Thames Street tunnels, but not elsewhere on the A3211.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003434

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003949

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003949

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003949

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003949

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless explicitly prohibited.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003949

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect legal restrictions, not matters of opinion.

Although walking along Blackfriars Underpass may not seem an attractive proposition, there are no signs explicitly prohibiting it and therefore no prohibition. Pedestrians are explicitly prohibited by signs at both ends of the Upper Thames Street tunnels, but not elsewhere on the A3211.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003434

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect legal restrictions, not matters of opinion.

Although walking along Blackfriars Underpass may not seem an attractive proposition, there are no signs explicitly prohibiting it and therefore no prohibition. Pedestrians are explicitly prohibited by signs at both ends of the Upper Thames Street tunnels, but not elsewhere on the A3211.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003434

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect legal restrictions, not matters of opinion.

Although walking along Blackfriars Underpass may not seem an attractive proposition, there are no signs explicitly prohibiting it and therefore no prohibition. Pedestrians are explicitly prohibited by signs at both ends of the Upper Thames Street tunnels, but not elsewhere on the A3211.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003434

There does not appear to be either a signed pedestrian prohibition here, or a gate. If the road is not a public highway (not maintainable at public expense), then ownership=private might apply - see osm.wiki/Tag:ownership%3Dprivate

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003055

There does not appear to be either a signed pedestrian prohibition here, or a gate. If the road is not a public highway (not maintainable at public expense), then ownership=private might apply - see osm.wiki/Tag:ownership%3Dprivate

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163003055

In what sense in Bessborough Gardens, which appears to be a public park operated by Westminster City Council, private?

https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parks-and-open-spaces/bessborough-gardens

Hi Wendy and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I note that you have added a lot of foot=no access restrictions with the changeset comment "cars only".

Access restrictions in OpenStreetMap reflect verifiable legal restrictions, which in the UK for foot=no requires a traffic order and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg ). There is no such thing as a "cars only restriction".

Pedestrians in the UK use highways by absolute right unless exp[licitly prohibited.

I will revert all of your incorrect changes in order to prevent your misunderstanding of the law from corrupting pedestrian routing services.

Changing a signed shared cycleway on the pavement to highway=footway without access tags allowing cycling isn't "adding detail", it's deliberate and malicious vandalism.

Please don't change roads to highway=construction for short duration roadworks. Not all routing software updates daily or even weekly, so the impact of changes like this can extend for longer than the road closure.

You could use a conditional restriction to implement a future road closure of known duration, see osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

Please also see these OSM Community discussions:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-edits-by-one-busmiles-user-in-the-uk/116376
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/a25-sinkhole-road-closure/126177

@NeisBot actually reverted by @BCNorwich

If it's a private driveway, access=private makes more sense than access=no. The name tag is for the actual name of an object, but there's a description tag which can be used.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/162898342

The petrol station area isn't a building and it isn't subterranean (layer=-1).

When iD tells you that a highway crosses a building, it should be asking you to fix the error, not hide it by adding an incorrect layer tag.

In this case, the error was the building=retail tag which you added. The fix was to remove it.