Not sure how I managed to screw that up, sorted now. I seemed to be trying to add kerb height and typed it in the middle of a crossing:island tag. Cheers for pointing it out

A cycleway is anywhere that is designated for use by cyclists, right? I map the physical state of things, complexity notwithstanding, to be as accurate to the world as possible.

^^Accidentally used auto-inputted comment from last edit. I added railings and crossings as distinct ways in this edit.

I believe your way looks more correct but this (poorly worded) paragraph on the wiki seems to disagree. The 'inner' (right) side being the 'smooth' roadway side, which ironically is the side drawn with triangles. That is assuming I read it right; the article does little to inspire confidence. barrier=guard_rail#How_to_map

Just noticed that this way is on version 24 lol. Perhaps this is a controversial subject

Pete and I are usually at odds but I can confirm he's factually correct.

But of course all of us have to have disagreements here :/ and I would view this as a street-gone-pedestrian, just less glamorous than what you'd see in a town centre, where trunk roads are replaced with flagstones.

I don't think access=no is a particularly appropriate or necessary tag, as its function is covered by motor_vehicle=no. As a user of OSM carto and not CyclOSM it greys it out for me, though of course mapping based on the renderer's output is officially considered bad practice.

In fairness, I appreciate you mapping the cycle network, it's a good addition to have. Keep that stuff up. However all I ask is you alter non-cycleways as such rather than delete and replace with a tag on the road. It's only going to be remapped, again and again.

And I make a conscious effort to keep it contiguous whenever I'm making any relevant edits. You seem to treat pavements designated for cyclists as nonexistent. Yes if it's not designated as such, sure, maybe it's not a cycleway. For such cases I make an effort to instead use either path, or when it's explicitly designated for pedestrians (signed), footpath. Deletion of things that do exist (this includes pavements) is vandalism.

^^ Just stop deleting separately mapped cycleways and we will have no issues going forward. That's pretty much the only problem I've ever had with you. If you find it inconsistent that there's no pavement then either map it yourself (but I imagine that's foreign territory for your priorities) or say "hey do you mind adding this so it's consistent?" or words to that effect. It would take me five minutes, and squash any rifts in the local mapping community I know of - worth it right?

If that's the criteria then I'll map both

Can you stop deleting cycleways. You've not restored anything that wasn't there beforehand

The satellite imagery is actually outdated on this. Having been past I can confirm it's been demolished

It's called a guideway and it's used by buses. Tbh that's the thought process.

Ok well let's leave this one be for now

I'm reporting this changeset yet again.

Tell that to national highways. https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/south-west/m49-avonmouth-junction/

Hi,

There were both a point and the building tagged as Verizon. I simply opted for building for simplicity, but fair point as to how the other floors may have other occupancy. My main aim was to fix the duplication.

It's best practice to describe the changes you make in the changeset comment. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Satellite imagery suggested to me that it is but reading more up on the subject, even recent articles suggest that some property business is battling it out with the council (and maybe Highways England too?) over who is responsible for building the road. Beats me. Now that this dumb fiasco has my attention I'll change it back and watch for any updates so I can accurately say it's under construction

Cheers Anton