Changes reverted in 120277421. Please do not add fictional streets & changes to Open Street Map. Please view my comment on your first change for more information.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120270647

Hi Hashtag Mappings. Welcome to Open Street Map.
I've reverted changes you made here since they are fictional. Open Street Map should reflect what is on the ground currently, if you wish to make fictional maps then there is a site just for that (https://opengeofiction.net/).

If you have a look at some of the pages on the wiki you can find out how you can add information to the current map to make it better.
osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide

If you have any questions feel free to message me or any other mapper, or ask on the discord.
https://discord.gg/openstreetmap

Foot=No (what you added) is only used when signage explicitly says that pedestrians are not allowed. There is no such signage along the A2011, or a TRO to introduce such restrictions. I've changed this back but added that there are no pavements which better reflects the physical access arrangements.

Didn't change cs description.
Just adjusted the ramp between the cycleway and road from works that took place this week

Good Evening UtterClutter,
The cycle lanes / tracks along the A270 are already mapped. When the cycle lane is on the same physical carriageway as the main roadway, it is tagged as part of the roadway as cycleway=lane or variations of. Only when the cycleway is segregated from traffic is highway=cycleway used, as you can see at the bus stop bypasses.

Please could you remove the cycleway you added.

cycleway=*

Good Evening UtterClutter,
OpenStreetMap is supposed to reflect what is currently on the ground, and not include historic or future features unless are evident on the ground.
For proposed roads (or any highway type) the correct way to a propose cycleway is highway=proposed & proposed=cycleway.
This was routing software will not try to take cyclists along a non-existence path.

Ah, I didn't look at the history for it, my bad.

Its not critical to remove the "m", data users usually have no issues if it is there.
Although if you see it on something that you are editing has the "m" on it, then I'd recommend removing it

Hi john paul jones & gringo,
When specifying width you do not need to use "m" for metres. Standard Metric Units are presumed unless a different unit is specified. So for width/height its presumed to be metres.

Kind regards,
Thomas
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118253434

This looks to me like a waste water treatment plant (aka. sewage works), rather than a water treatment plant.

I've reverted changes made today by Nathan. I've reviewed all the changes and none of them are creditable using the latest aerial imagery / personal knowledge.
Thanks for contacting DWG Bernard, I did message them last night, so they are aware.

Hi Nathan,
I've reverted the changes you made in this changeset, and your other changes on the basis that the changes were false. Changes you make to the map affects loads of real world uses & users, so we need to keep this information as accurate as possible with no fantasy information.
As you are new to OSM, I'd recommend you look at the wiki (osm.wiki/) so you can see how information should be entered & make changes to improve the map. If you need help with anything to do with mapping there are many places you can go for help such as the discord server, or messaging a fellow mapper.

I suggest this Changeset to be reverted on the basis of sourceless name changes, tag changes & road seemingly being extended or altered. Also new account & lacks comment of changesets.

Some issues I've seen with the changeset which need attention.
A single way of a road be converted to a relation? r/13878610 is incorrect and needs to be reverted to be a way.
w/37855753 has been dragged.
w/200596450 (stand london) has randomly had some of its section made into Trunk from Primary & speed limit changed.
w/9174056 name change seems doubtful.
w/1036342780 changes around there seems doubtful, or not very accurate. - new residential road off of Dual carriageway, extends woods out, but then puts two unrealistically sized houses in the woods? along with other name changes.
w/24230681 & w/24230683 Residential road extended through hosues?

Various other places in Hull had road names changed & cul-de-sacs made into through roads?

w/138953981 this road (including other ways) been made into Primary (some secondary) (from unclass) and ref of (A27) + name removed?!?

Hi FvGordon,

I see you have corrected some typos I put in on the turning lanes. However you have also reduced the lanes by one. The roundabout was enlarged on all its arms in 2019/2020, so has three. So what I had as the lanes was correct minus the typos.

What is meant by "construction = yes" on the former runway?

Okay that all sounds alright then. Thanks for following it up!

Hi Alex,
The source of this change is a user made "google my map", however the owner of this is unclear, as such there may not be any rights to use this data, and would infringe copyright. Also it is dated from 7 years ago, so I'd expect some of these motorcycle parking areas to have been relocated, as well as some more added in that time. Unless you have checked each and every one of these motorcycle parking bays, it ought to not be added, however bing aerial imagery in Brighton should be clear enough to confirm locations of motor cycle parking on their own (Bing imagery dates from about May 2020, so fairly up to date).
Could you check with the owner of the source you used that their data can be used in OSM? If not it will likely have to be removed.

In regards to how you have mapped/tagged the parking areas, I would like to point out that parking=street_side means a parking spot built out of the side of the road (like a layby), not a painted bay on the carriageway as I'd suspect the majority of these to be. They should be parking=lane, to show they are on the main carriageway. The rest of the tagging looks fine at first glance.

Kind regards,
Thomas

No worries.
You can work out the offset by turning on the "OSMUK cadastral parcels" layer and then moving the Bing layer around so the boundaries on the cadastral layer match wall/fences/hedges on the Bing imagery. Not every boundary will match exactly, since boundaries on the ground are not always where the legal boundaries are.
I use JOSM, so not sure how moving layers around works in ID.

A difference of -1.42; -1.05 isn't huge, but for things that are micro mapped it does make a difference. But as you may of found, some roads in Brighton are more than 5 meters out, even the pier was 15m+ out before I moved the whole thing last year.

https://osmuk.org/cadastral-parcels/

Are you aware that Bing aerial imagery isn't perfectly aligned? You need to offset Bing to -1.42; -1.05 in Brighton. However this does vary by about 0.5m in all directions around Brighton.

Disregard that. Don't know how I missed that. I'll fix it shortly.
Thanks for letting me know!

Hello Strimplers,
Thanks for letting me know. I've tried to find recent changes to Worthing Road around here, but an able to find the Changes you are talking about. Could you give me the CS number or the Way number please.
Thank you,
Thomas