Many thanks - I've added it in changeset/179744455

Thanks.

Thanks for realigning this road.

I've changed it to highway=residential, split the landuse and traced the houses in changeset/179643405

The highway has a Designated Street Name USRN, but there isn't (yet?) a name in OS Open Names or OS Open Roads. I was wondering if one is visible in TomTom's proprietary street side imagery?

The path is still visible in aerial imagery. What has caused the path to cease to exist - construction work, site redevelopment, addition of a gate/fences, etc.?

Track reconnected in changeset/179638642

Access tags in OSM should reflect the legal position, not a subjective opinion about whether it is undrivable.

Also, intentionally disconnecting highways in order to break routing for one transport mode is bad enough, but that breaks routing for *all* transport modes.

That said, the access tagging on Orestan Lane and Dirtham Road looks highly dubious to me - access=yes would probably only be correct if these are BOATs (byways open to all traffic). Are these signed as public rights of way at all, and if so, what type?

Please don't use copyrighted sources for OSM. The End User Licence for FindMyStreet expressly forbids redistribution:
"3.3 This End User Licence does not give the End User the right to sub-license, distribute, sell or otherwise make available the Streets Data to third parties in any form save where expressly permitted in writing by the Licensor, OS and GeoPlace."
https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/terms-of-use#

If you want to indicate that there is a pavement at he side of the road, there is the sidewalk=* tag for this.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for updating this, although you may have misunderstood the access tagging.

The sign at the start of the bus lane on the A33 southbound after the junction with Bennet Road is TSRGD diagram 959B, with only a bus symbol and no time plate (i.e. it applies at all times). In OSM terms, this is tagged as vehicle=no + bus=designated
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.425611&lng=-0.9801714999999831&z=19.126492453401493&pKey=1430615991434858&focus=photo

access=no is usually wrong for a highway unless it's a long term closure to all transport modes
bicycle=yes is incorrect here, as the bus lane only permits buses.
foot=no other than on motorways requires a traffic order and an explicit sign prohibiting pedestrians, which is not the case here
motor_vehicle=designated does not mean "for designated vehicles only" (this would usually be motor_vehicle=private ), but "legally designated as a right of way for *all* motor vehicles"
vehicle=bus doesn't mean anything (that's what bus=* is for), the original vehicle=no was correct

Reverted in changeset/179573060

Please also see osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk

Also, the name=* tag should only be used for the actual name of a road, not a description (you can use description=* for that)

Thanks for spotting and fixing that. I wonder why the other mapper felt that inflicting highway=path anywhere which isn't also informal=yes could be remotely helpful.

Was there any particular reason to change correctly tagged highway=cycleway ways to highway=path ? (Already reverted in most cases by another user)

It looks like a similar idea in terms of access differences, but I'm not sure how well the US-centric rideshare=* maps to UK PHVs. It seems a strange and counterintuitive term anyway, as there's generally no sharing involved in hiring a PHV (and in the UK, whether they are a subset of psv=* is simple to answer: they are not).

I feel that this is a question for the community forums. I don't think using the undocumented phv=designated is a great solution to document that exception, but it may have to do for now. I've added a note=* to the ways where this applies.

PHV = Private Hire Vehicle, in this case explicitly signed as an exception to the prohibition of motor vehicles at the Horse Market end of Gold Street. It's similar to a taxi, but legally distinct with the most important difference being that it must be pre-booked and cannot use taxi ranks or be hailed on the street. It should probably documented in the wiki, but ATYL.

Thanks for your understanding. Updated in changeset/179170266

I see you've added quite a few separate sidewalks in this part of Northampton. Unfortunately, as they don't connect to crossings, they're not merely unhelpful to pedestrian navigation, but actually detrimental (as I found out using OSM-based routing last Saturday).

Those along the busy St James' Road would be useful for pedestrian, wheelchair and visually impaired navigation, so I have added the missing crossings and accessibility features.

However, Sharman Road, Spencer Street and Lincoln Road don't really have crossing points with any recognisable features like dropped kerbs or tactile paving. Unlike on nearby Bowden Road (where I added driveways), these are streets of terraced houses with no driveways which could be used by pedestrian routers. I could add footway=link ways and crossing=informal nodes to "fix" pedestrian routing here, but I feel that it would be better to remove the decorative sidewalks and tag the streets with sidewalk=both . Do you have any objection to me doing this?

Ideally, a correction adds information which isn't fictitious. Adding access=no and psv=yes when there's no signage to support that, just because you though it might work better with the #busmiles router is unhelpful.

Fixed in changeset/178871234

Damn, sorry - and thanks for fixing it!

There seemed to be some entangled multipolygons around there, but I should have been a bit more careful with which one I changed.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for updating these and other shops. It's nice to see a BID getting involved.

Could I make one suggestion when a shop, restaurant, etc. has closed and the premises are vacant? Rather than simply deleting the tag which tells data consumers what sort of feature this is (in this case, shop=bathroom ), but instead add the disused: lifecycle prefix so that it would become disused:shop=bathroom . You could also optionally add a check_date=* tag

I should stress that your edit is not incorrect, but using lifecycle prefixes helps people using surveying apps like StreetComplete to check periodically whether a vacant shop has a new occupier.

Also, Mr Sachin Malde would do well to read the GMC guidance: https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional

Mr Sotonye Tolofari would do well to read the GMC guidance: https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional