Just a note to say great work pablobm, thanks! 👏😊

No prob, thanks for pointing it out :)

Ah, thanks for that ramthelinefeed - looks like I forgot to remove the route relations from the (formerly road ways) admin boundary lines, so there was a duplication of the route along a short stretch. Have fixed now; OSM inspector isn't currently behavong for me so I can't check whether it's resolved now, but it should be.

Apols, incorrect reference link - the correct one is bridge=*#Bridge_lifecycle

Thanks for the edit ChezFrogLegs. Could I suggest though, rather than deletion, to mark the bridge as collapsed via its tags, as per bridge=*#Bridge%20lifecycle ?

Just swapping the highway tag for abandoned:highway would do this and mean that the way is still mapped and can be reinstated at a later date if/when rebuilt (or altered to ruins:highway or removed:highway etc as appropriate). This also has the added benefit that any unwitting mapper who comes along and sees the old aerial imagery doesn't inadvertently reinstate the footway.

Thanks for the message. To address each point:
1. I've found a few that didn't quite match on the north face of the building - fixed now. All nodes link to the outer edge of the building where they should; nodes that are away from the edge of the building are deliberately so for the facades (see below) and for the angled roof sections which meet in the middle.
2. Thanks for that, I've removed the construction tags on the building - the surrounding area is still under construction, so is correct.
3. Yes, this is representative of what is on the ground (while using the newest imagery as a reference).
4. Roof sections are tagged with building:material, not roof:material, because their outer walls are concrete. However it's probably more elegant to place the building:material in the main building, so I've done so and removed from each of the building:parts.
5. This facade could potentially be a barrier=wall with material=glass instead of a polygon I suppose - not sure it would render well in 3D though, and the East wall would still need to have the current setup anyway (as the angled roof shape is also part of the polygon). There are pros and cons to either approach, not least that technically it should be a "part" of the building construction, rather than a separately mapped line. But I'm open to suggestions.

Ah, fair enough :-)

This does highlight a wider difficulty around effectively mapping floor numbers, heights and separate parts of buildings that are on uneven/sloping ground though. Technically the way you mention, relative to ground level on the north side (entrance side), would have height=0, or perhaps height=-3 or something as it is a basement level. Meanwhile, where it sits on the south side, the ground level is much lower, so in reality it's more than a metre proud of the surrounding ground. I think my height=1 was a compromise to demonstrate the distinctive shape to the building (part). It's a difficult thing to standardise really.

Another nearby example is way/148653738 which has an underground level which becomes ground level at one end of the building.

I should add, it'll take around 24 hours for f4map to update, it's a bit annoying like that.

Thanks, I had some time on my hands :-D

On that photo, the way you're talking about is just out of sight around the building, to the left. So you may be confusing it with the shelter over the main entrance on the north side (which admittedly I didn't map). I've made another edit which adds the entrance structure, in case that clarifies. The bit on the other side (from my own knowledge of it) has a basement space, while the ground floor is just a flat terrace.

My apologies, and thanks for the correction. Some parking ways etc had this inconsistently applied, so I had thought it was a mistake. NB this is likely to result in GPS routers stating "turn left onto A4" on any of these service roads, causing confusion, so it may be that a different or subset tag would be appropriate like loc_ref - but as a visitor I don't want to intrude on local standards 😊

Ooh, sorry about that! I thought I had picked up on any relations at the time.

Ah yes - there are no signs because it is still national speed limit in all directions - no signage is required, as there is no change. Rumble strips may cause a driver to reduce speed, but "maxspeed" is for the legal limit of the road, not the driveable limit. So on the A4 dual carriageway (and on A5 DC link to the old Ballygawley roudabout) I have marked as
maxspeed=70 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_dual
[NB: This is the established norm for UK national speed limits: the maxspeed:type contains the signed NSL and type of applicable road; maxspeed contains the highest legal speed by any vehicle (in this case, car/motorbike/light van) and is provided for routers which don't yet process the UK NSL tags. Once they do, they should show the lowest of the two tags, dependent on vehicle type.]
Similarly, on the single carriageway A5/A4 I have set as
maxspeed=60 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single.

The nearest national speed limit signs are on the Grange Road approach from Ballygawley (signed 30 mph) to the old roundabout.

Hi MCDA, thanks for the query. This was part of some large-scale maxspeed updates over the past few months to improve routing & for any other data applications - I've tried my best to minimise errors, but I accept there may be some.

Regarding street lights however, I researched this as much as possible (there is not much documened online, and the legislation is somewhat open to interpretation). The clearest source I could find was this [2009 discussion on the RAC forums](https://forum.rac.co.uk/threads/9339-When-does-an-unrestricted-road-become-restricted/page2) with information purported to be from the DfT and Thames Valley Police, stating their shared interpretation that a truly "restricted" road (i.e. 30 limit denoted by presence of street lights) can only be enforced if it has a 30 limit sign when you enter the section of road. Thus, when in the zone, no repeater signs are required because the street lights denote the restricted nature of the road. Meanwhile, if you enter a stretch of road with street lights and no indication of entering a restricted (30) limit, this is not considered to be a restricted road and therefore retains the limit last signposted (e.g. NSL).

[Incidentally, I'm not aware of any mention in legislation of a implied 40 limit as per your message, only interpretations of an implied 30 limit.]

In practice, if traffic were to slow down to 30 at any section with street lights (e.g. around junctions on the dual carriageway A4) it would actually be dangerous to them and other road users. The other practical issue I can think of is where drivers use a "black box" speed monitor to keep their insurance premiums low. If they were to drive along a NSL single carriageway at 60 mph, pass a few streetlights at a junction where the road has been marked on OSM as a 30 limit, due to only the presence of lamp posts, they will be unfairly penalised when this is processed as a transgression.

General opinion is that the legislation around speed limits is a bit of a mess, but the DfT and TVP intepretation appears to provide fairly clear and implementable standard. Happy to discuss here or somewhere more public, if this doesn't seem like the right interpretation :-)

Oops indeed! My bad, thanks for spotting 😊

I must have been splitting ways at the roundabout while I was at it, left out the step of adding relations back in. Fixed now.

Thanks for those, I may get to them at some point 😊

Even a short distance NW of this edit there's a long section of the Cavan Road which should just be a single carriageway, with traffic islands mapped as nodes. The approach I take is as documented on the OSM wiki (osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway) - if there is no physical barrier separating the carriageways, it's not a dual carriageway and should be mapped as a single way. As a result the Cavan Road has driveways linked to only one side of the road, but you can guarantee the road design is not meant to be left-in left-out only for those access ways. There are occasional exceptions to what's in the wiki, but roads like these are pretty clear cut (see also examples on the wiki page).

It does take some unpicking of relations though (bus routes and the like), so needs some care. I also check which way is the oldest of the two, to retain as much edit history as possible. Give it a try some time – or otherwise I may get round to it.

*Typo, gat=that

Hi vas111, yes it's technically not required (except in some instances, e.g. where other transport methods do not treat the road as one way), but it doesn't do any harm. I tend to add the forward/backward tags habitually as I'm working on other items nearby, as it means I'm always applying the same standard whether it's on one or two-way roads, and with the more consistent view gat results, I'm able to more easily spot any errors I've made. This changeset wasn't specifically to add directions to traffic lights, but to ensure they were mapped on respective ways rather than on both nodes at the intersection, which results in any routing across the junction on the single carriageway "seeing" two sets of traffic lights instead of one. But I did add the directions as a by-the-by.

Hi vas111, thanks for the query.

For intersections between dual and single carriageway I work off the recommendations on the (now archived it seems) Mapbox intersection modelling page (https://web.archive.org/web/20230602212339/https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/). This dictates that a split in the carriageway should not occur at the point of intersection, as it can confuse routing software and produce unpredictable results. The recommendation in this instance would be to either continue the separate ways of Market Street to the north side of the junction and join them into a single carriageway post- intersection, or alternatively have the intersection occur between a single and a dual carriageway, by combining the Market Street carriageways on the south side. I opted for the latter, as there is a natural space on the south side of the intersection for this to occur, allowing the mapped "theoretical" ways to better represent real life, versus the former.

If a further U-turn relation is required then that's not too big an issue - it is after all just a rule that will block U-turn routing from occuring. But the recommended intersection layout has a big effect on compatibility with different routing software, so I'd argue it's the more important need here. I should add though that the Aberdeen roads are mapped to a high standard, so great work if you've been involved in this 😊

Hi GinaroZ, no not specifically, apologies if I've used the wrong designation. I was going by the fact that it is used by both pedestrians and traffic traversing the same road (i.e. pedestrians are not separated onto walkways) so is a living street at least in usage/spirit, if not in legal designation. Service road seemed unlikely as it was built at the same time as nearby residential roads, with similar usage and to similar proportions - perhaps the best solution is Residential with a surface tag to denote a change from asphalt?

Hi midnight2024, I see you have altered a large section of the A92 in Arbroath to highway=construction, I assume in relation to note [4183658](note/4183658). Are you sure there is absolutely no access from one side of the town to the other, and the Guthrie Port Roundabout is entirely closed to traffic? As the changes you have made will currently stop GPS software routing road users along any of these roads. I have a hunch this needs to be mapped differently to take into account what access routes are still open on the ground, to ensure GPS road users are not affected.