The data that you’re editing is shared with everyone else. Please don’t
add non-existent railway lines to the map. It's *very* unlikely that local mappers would have missed a railway line in South-East England.

If you’re not sure about what you’re doing, perhaps head over to https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7/none and ask a question there - I’m sure someone will be able to help you.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

While the site is being redeveloped, it might be better to tag the area as landuse=construction + construction=residential.

landuse=construction

Please don't add features which already exist on the map.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

If you're adding a footpath as a highway=footway, you often don't need to add any access tags, as the default access in the UK is assumed to be foot=yes (only).

Adding access=no won't affect pedestrian routing, but will cause the path to be rendered by OSM Carto (the default map style) as a faint grey dotted line rather than the usual red.

The iD editor isn't that helpful here, as it presents general access and motor vehicle access for all highways, even ones where they are unlikely to be appropriate (e.g. footway, cycleway, bridleway, pedestrian and path).

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Are you sure that Bute Avenue is private *access*?

Looking at the Bing Streetside imagery, it's certainly privately owned (ownership=private). It does not appear to be gated and is signed as "no through road" rather than something more restrictive, so presumably residents can received visitors, deliveries and taxis without prior permission. Perhaps access=destination would be a better fit than access=private here?

ownership=private
access=*#List_of_possible_values

https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=51.503626%7E0.089829&lvl=21.5&mo=om.1&pi=-18&style=x&dir=83.7

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

For the coffee shop side of your business, it may be worth adding a separate amenity=cafe + cuisine=coffee_shop node next to the bike shop with the same address tags (and things like opening_hours, diet:vegetarian/vegan/gluten_free, etc.).

It's not the most elegant solution, but OSM has a "One feature, one OSM element" principle. On the plus side, both icons should be rendered on OpenCycleMap.

You may also want to tweak the address a little, so that it has addr:street="High Street" + addr:suburb="Green Street Green"

If you need any help, feel free to ask.

The is_sidepath=* proposal looks like a good replacement for name=* on sidewalks. However, it's still at the RFC stage and as far as I know the only routing software which currently uses it is cycle.travel, which isn't a pedestrian router.

Before the proposal goes to a vote, could I suggest adding is_sidepath:of:name=* while retaining name=* for now. This is the approach I will take for some of the sidewalks I've added in the near future.

The justification in the wiki for asserting that name=* should not be used on a footway=sidewalk is from your own recent edit. Perhaps this should be discussed on OSM Community first - you may well get a consensus agreeing with you.

If the proposal moves to a vote and is accepted, I feel that would be the time to discuss the timescale (if any) to migrate tagging from name=* to is_sidepath:of:name=*

Thanks!

Thank you!

The service road for the school is tagged as access=private, which indicates that the object is not to be used by the general public. Access is only with permission on an individual basis. This would be the usual case for a gated road on school grounds, unless there was a public right of way.

Adding motor_vehicle=yes + bicycle=yes + foot=yes implies that the public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access using those transport modes; i.e., it's a right of way. Please could you confirm whether there is a public right of way, or revert your change?

Thanks.

There is a full explanation of tagging in OpenStreetMap here:
access=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

For Public Rights of Way in England, there's a more detailed scheme for tagging access and designation, which you could use, if it's of interest. (Note that it's not essential and there's absolutely nothing wrong with your edit as it is.)

For example, the LAT9 bridleway in this changeset could be tagged as:
highway=bridleway
designation=public_bridleway
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
horse=designated
prow_ref=Latimer BR 9

Details of tagging for various types of PRoW are at:
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

There is also a website which allows you to check the status of PRoW mapping in some parts of the country. Progress for Latimer CP, Buckinghamshire is actually better than this suggests, as the tool does not recognise the current tagging using (e.g.) ref=LAT9
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/bucks/-/latimer/

I hope that the above is of some use or interest, but feel free to ignore it if it isn't.

Thanks for adding this - the separate sidewalks added in this area seem to have been more decorative than functional, so are currently of limited use for pedestrian routing.

In order for routing engines to include a new edge in the routing graph, the added way generally needs to have a highway=* tag, in this case highway=footway.

I have added this, together with information about the crossing (type, accessibility, etc.) in changeset/136128749

Redundant names removed by @wikimax in changeset/133615170

You have traced duplicate buildings traced on top of buildings, which is why the iD editor warned you about crossing buildings. Please don't ignore editor warnings unless you understand them and have a good reason.

The name tag isn't a description field. We have building=house for that.

Fully reverted in changeset/136116338

Repeating my comments on changeset #134414016:

1) The name=* key is for the unique name of an object, not just a general description. If there isn't an appropriate tag, you can use description=*, but in this case you could use building=house. I've linked to the documentation on these below.

name=*
building=house

2) You've traced some houses on top of houses which had already mapped.

3) Please don't type gibberish as your changeset comment.

As the previous comment was ignored, reverted without further discussion in
changeset/136116111

foot=no removed in changeset/136115627

foot=no removed in changeset/136115495

1) Staines Road is a primary road (A315), not a residential road.

2) Because someone chose to map them. As with the individual orchard trees you deleted a couple of years ago, a feature not being mapped the way you would do it is not an adequate reason to delete it. The feature not existing or being otherwise factually incorrect would be, but that is not the case here.

I would not usually map separate sidewalks on a residential road, unless it was a new development with a lot of crossings with accesibility features. However, another mapper did and the features exist.

On main roads with defined crossing points, separate sidewalks are useful for pedestrian/wheelchair/VI routing, particularly where accesibility features and obstacles can be mapped in more detail than crossings as a node on the highway only.

Why did you delete the separate sidewalks along Hatton Road and Myrtle Avenue?

Reinstated, with more crossing detail in changeset/136040522

Thanks. There's also a building=pavilion tag, if you think that it would be appropriate for these.

building=pavilion