Hi
Why not?
AFAICT address data was transferred from isolated nodes with no primary tag information to closed ways of 'building'. This is an accepted & popular tagging method making the OSM database more accurate.

Hi Welcome to OSM.
FYI non adopted, cul-de-sac roads on private land are best tagged as service roads.
When adding new sections of road please check to see if they break route relations in this case NCN4 cycle route:
way/750203025#map=18/51.66832/-4.72112&layers=C

Hi Welcome to OSM

FYI you've missed a few bridges:
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=77767031

Hi Nick
There's a lot of confusing information on this page, but the 'UK' examples are all wrong & should be removed (IMO)*

They're all given highway=path tags but the more popular way is to be more specific highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway etc. Some contributors misinterpret this as authoritative, that cycleway indicates cyclists has priority. This is incorrect - it only indicates that more transport modes are allowed to use it.

Bridleways: Both walkers & cyclists have rights to use a bridleway so can be 'designated'
Cycleways: The vast majority in the UK are shared paths (the blue signs of a bike & a person indicate designated use)
Footway: There is no requirement for 'no' tags as non access rights of bikes & horses is implied.

*There are far too many web pages for UK access rights with differing information. An amalgamation is required.

Hi
What is PDOK imagery?

171441196
Apologies. I wasn't paying close attention.

226074641
This is the signage
https://snipboard.io/edzaUS.jpg

I agree cycleway=yes is redundant.
Highway shouldn't really have been change previously from cycleway to footway. However footway can still have a valid foot=designated tag. The blue sign in the picture of the path indicates both walking & cycling is designated.

way/24831846/history
Similarly this cycleway can be bicycle=designated

DaveF

Hi Nick
Which wiki page are you referencing?
If a ways designation is a public_bridleway then foot, bicycle etc access is designated.

Hi
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/171441196
How do you know this isn't a living street?

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/226074641
How do you know this path isn't designated for walking?
This is over a wide area. How do you ascertain your edits?

Hi
relation/28951
FYI 'riverbank' tag is considered a bit out of date.
water=*#Natural_features
natural=water & water=river fit better with other water features.

Hi
There's no requirement for explicit bicycle=yes on trunk roads.

Hi
Is there a reason you removed 'driveway'?
way/18936192

But you added that section. You can't use your own edit as justification. Where was this discussed?

A router must know the name of the station it's at so it doesn't need to be add to the platform.

There is a claim that name is required at all (it certainly isn't Mandatory as listed in that wiki page). All that's really required if the ref number/letter.

If a renderer wants to expand the platform's label they can take the ref & prefix it with 'Platform' etc.

Hi
Is there a specific, necessary reason you've added station names to platform names?
Was it discussed on a forum?

Re: snarky:
I wish to maintain the OSM database so it can be as accurate as possible. Adding inaccurate data does not do that.
I'm irritated by the number of times I'm asked by contributors to clear up their mistakes. OSM is a do-ology. Those who created an error should clear it up.

You created both relations:
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/10218025
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/10218026

Does Watercress Farm not exist any more?

If you don't understand about multipolygon relations please refrain from using them.
Details con be found here:
osm.wiki/Relation#Multipolygon

Hi
You've still created a pointless relation. I it only has one member it is unnecessary. It should just be a way.

Hi Could you clarify why you've created two identical relations, both of which have only one member - an outer?

Hi again
There's no need for the negating tags as highway=footway already excludes

Hi
Are you absolutely sure that's a designated *public* footpath? It doesn't say so on the signs.
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths

Hi
The name of the street is Calverton St.
The name of the terraced buildings are Widcombe Parade, Claverton Buildings, Sussex Place etc.

FYI
references should be tagged as 'ref' or 'prow_ref; if an English designated public footpath not 'name'.