Welcome to OSM! Saw your discussion on the forum - thanks for following-up and making the edits! Not sure how long it'll take for this change to make it's way into your bike computer.

Hi EmilioL, thanks for providing all this extra info about this hotel. You set the building=yes tag; the default iD editor makes it easy to do this by mistake. I'm about to remove this tag, because this hotel is not a building in its own right; it's part of a complex building that includes other businesses. If you think it should be a separate building - lets continue the discussion here.

Thanks again for your contributions!

Actually added details from new Panoramix images, not "updated opening times from signage". errors.

Corrected in changeset 168681504.

If you come across a few similar errors, feel free to correct them. If it looks like I've systematically made this error in loads of places, please let me know, and I'll fire up JOSM at the weekend and work through them.

Thank-you for bringing these to my attention. I think what's happened is that these ways are correctly (in my view*) marked as bike-only; BUT I've neglected to check the foot-routability of the surrounding roads a a result. E.g. they're marked as sidewalk=separate, but I've ended up effectively removing the sidewalk by mistake. I'll fix them up shortly. (Either by making the sidewalk part of the roadway, or by making most of the cycleway a shared, segregated sidepath with appropriate end points.

Hello! And welcome to OSM. Thank-you for adding this footpath. I've made a couple of changes - so that the main footpath is not blocked by the gate on the side path round the back of No. 13-23. I also extended the path up to the north - to help routers.

If you want to add more sidewalks in future, it would be good to extend them to connect to pre-existing ways; for routers.

Welcome again!

I visited it yesterday and corrected it this morning.

Hi there. In this changeset, you've modified the path layout around this way - osm.org/way/273786254

It looks like it might have been a mistake- ehat do you think?

Oh, good spot.

Thank you! Might be handy to have this shortcut mapped!

Tah!

As far as I can tell. You've added an amenity=fastfood to the tower hamlets admin boundary relation here, which can't be right.

Hi there - you've done a lot in this changeset. What is your source for the changes you've made? Do you have local knowledge, e.g. of the traffic crossing types and they're marked or not?

This might be an attempt to answer: osm.org/user/Jo%20White%20MP/diary/406508

Intriguing possibility that the user here is actually the MP for Bassetlaw.

(should be a '-' hyphen not the word 'to')

Is the 1st June opening date posted locally? Would it be worth setting a conditional access tag, something like:
access:conditional=no @ (2025 April 01 to 2025 May 31)

We corresponded about schools back in Feb. This looks terrific!

Oh, the E7 was already there too. Job done, I think.

Might be worth having another look to sort out how motor_vehicles access the garage door on the east side of 212C Upton Lane (a current or former motor mechanic building). Maybe a split and a motor_vehicles=private or customers on the south end.

But that doesn't seem urgent.

name:etymology:wikidata=Q7966315 was added in this changeset. But I'm about to pop back into it in a sec to add that postcode-for-streets as E7, since the sign has that too.

Hi there Gwendolyn from Colorado. This restaurant is actually signed as QQ. Please see note #4665377 for image.