Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The way mentioned is adjacent to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/662332132/history/2, which is also surface=paving_stones tagged by another user. As well as this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024398493/history/2. More than likely, VLD292 was trying to follow the OSM tags of the adjacent footways. Just providing some perspective on what most likely happened in this instance. This, however, does not negate the importance of verification, which I talk about in this post: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-walkabout-london-complex-intersections-pedestrian-mapping-initiative/134887/5