I see that you have mapped traffic lanes on several sections of road in this area as separate ways, which is usually only correct where there is physical carriageway separation over an extended distance. We have tags like lanes=* + lanes:forward=* + lanes:backward=* + turn:lanes to describe the characteristics of the carriageway.

See e.g. osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Unless pedestrian access is explicitly prohibited with a traffic sign and associated traffic order, it is not illegal to walk on any public road in the UK. Access tags in OSM reflect the legal position, not an opinion on whether or not it might be safe or a good idea.

osm.wiki/Key:access
osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#625.1

What issue do you believe changing the correct tagging of highway=footway to the less specific highway=path fixed?

Removing the highway=trunk tag from part of the Westbound carriageway of the A232 Barclay Road doesn't strike me as being particularly professional. If this hadn't been fixed promptly, it would have caused problems for OSM-based routing software.
osm.org/changeset/168784365

This should actually be tagged crossing:markings=zebra;dots

The dots (TSRGD diagram 1055.1) are a non-mandatory part of the crossing markings with relevance to pedestrians using the crossings.

The dashes (TSRGD diagram 1001.5) are give way markings specific to zebra and parallel crossings. I am not aware of them being mapped separately and adding them as highway=give_way nodes might confuse routing software.

See:
osm.wiki/Key:crossing:markings#Examples
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14#tgp3-tbl3-tbd1-tr52

This cycle track probably shouldn't have foot=no (or any other value of foot=*) set on it, as there isn't a TSRGD diagram 955 sign (Route for use by pedal cycles and electric scooters being used in a trial, only) where it separates from the carriageway heading WSW. There's no pedestrian prohibition in place, although sane routing software will send pedestrians via the separate footbridge on the other side f the carriageway.

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thanks for updating it.

Vandalising OSM by adding entirely fictitious and legally implausible weight restrictions does not "improve" anything.

Liar.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If your business is only on the 3rd floor of Nena House, it would be better to add it as either a node (point), with the additional tags level=3 and addr:floor=3rd Floor.

As it stands, you have overwritten tags which apply to the building as a whole.

If you need any help with this, please feel free to ask.

Hi,

If this is local to you, please could you confirm whether there is any signed weight restriction on this road?

It was tagged by another user with maxweight=10, which is incorrect and legally implausible (UK signage can restrict maxweightrating, not maxweight), but I don't want to simply remove it in case there is a real maximum gross weight limit for HGVs or over the bridge.

* changing to highway=footway renders it invisible in OSM Carto.

Please could you point me to the wiki page where it says that they value of highway=* should be determined by Highway Code Rules H1-H3?

Tagging as highway=cycleway does not imply anything about who has priority, but it does render a cycleway invisible on OSM Carto.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

The path is shown on the map as having restricted access (grey rather than red) and has been correctly tagged with foot=private since May 2022. It is somewhat unlikely that unauthorised users are attempting to use the path as a short cut due to its inclusion in OpenStreetMap.

As it is clearly visible in aerial imagery, the most likely result of deleting it would have been someone else adding it back from the aerial imagery alone, but without any access restriction.

For further information, please see:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
and
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/167096775

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.

Adding an entirely fictitious and legally improbable weight restriction is vandalism, not an improvement.