Reverted in changeset/144040774

You appear to have tagged a section of Hartmann Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I cannot find any evidence in Bing street side imagery, or from my recollection of surveying this street, that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Reverted in changeset/144040534

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding these.

If the buildings you have added are seating for spectators, they might be better tagged as leisure=bleachers and building=grandstand.

The documentation for these two tags is linked below.

leisure=bleachers

building=grandstand

If this is a cannon, then historic=cannon is correct and documented.

historic=cannon

Many thanks for updating the speed limit. Could I just make one request - please include the unit e.g. "50 mph", as OpenStreetMap defaults to metric units.

Thanks. I'm not sure how you would do it using OsmAnd, so I've deleted it in changeset/143887506

Is this already mapped as node/2918084488

A quick though about roads signed as Quiet Lanes before I start the weekend...
You could add note="Quiet Lane" and/or something like designation=quiet_lane (but this could conflict with PRoW tagging) or the undocumented traffic_intervention=quiet_lane (tag used for some school streets and LTNs). That way, it's clear to other mappers why it's been tagged as a highway=living_street.

Have a good weekend.

I am no fan of "satnav idiots" either and will do what I can to help, but within OSM's rules.

Some of these problems are very difficult or impossible to solve, unless Cornwall CC bring in additional restrictions with traffic orders.

There is no street side imagery of the affected roads available with an OSM-compatible licence. If you or other local residents are able to capture and upload imagery with the Mapillary app, that could be very helpful.

For narrow roads, you can use narrow=yes and lane_markings=no. If possible, add est_width=*, or better still width=* (but this requires using a tape measure) with a single value at the narrowest point. You may need to split the road if there's a distinct narrow section. Adding lanes=1 and passing_places=yes or passing_places=no (as appropriate) may help, together with the positions of passing places as highway=passing_place nodes.

Capturing the smoothness=* values for potholed sections may help. I find the StreetComplete app (Android only) is very good for this. You can split a road in the app if the smoothness changes significantly along the road.

If there are red triangular warning signs (and I appreciate that there may not be, due to Cornwall CC's budget constraints), you can tag both the sign and use the appropriate hazard=* tag on the affected section of road. See:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/2/made
hazard=*#Traffic_hazards

If the three parish councils in this area write to some of the satnav providers like TomTom, that might help.

I understand the frustration caused by rat running traffic. The street on which I live was a rat run until a Low Traffic Neighbourhood modal filter, with a signed prohibition of motor vehicles was introduced.

However, we can only record facts in OpenStreetMap. Adding fictitious access restrictions and reclassifying highways in an attempt to break satnav routing is likely to be considered vandalism.

Of particular concern in this changeset, but not an exhaustive list:

way/146337398 - this is a highway=unclassified, changing it to service would imply that it is an access road and probably not a public highway. I do not believe this to be the case.

highway=living_street - unless it is explicitly signed as a Home Zone (TSRGD diagram 886) or a Quiet Lane (diagram 884), then it is a highway=residential or highway=unclassified

Private roads should generally be access=private (often gated), or access=destination + ownership=private (not gated, open and routeable for deliveries, taxis, visitors, etc.). Neither should be treated as through routes by routers.

est_width - metres are the default unit, so need not be included. Using a tilde for a range of widths is undocumented and will result in the field being ignored as unparseable. I am not convinced that these roads are at any point as narrow as 1.5 metres.

You added access=destination to a BOAT (Byway Open to All Traffic). It's a public *right* of way, which already had the correct access tags.

Use of discouraged as an access tag - hgv=discouraged is fine if (and only if) it is signed as "unsuitable for HGVs" (TSRGD diagram 820A).

You can find the road signs referred to above in Schedule 11 TSRGD 2016. These signs can also be added to OSM as nodes on the highway at the point closes to the actual sign, e.g. "Unsuitable for HGVs" would be traffic_sign=GB:820A + hgv=discouraged
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made
traffic_sign=*

I am afraid that you edit introduced a number of tags which you may not have fully understood before using them, including highway=living_street, access=discouraged and maxspeed:type. Due to the number of errors introduced, I have reverted this changeset.

Please familiarise yourself with the documentation of tags before using them.
osm.wiki/

Restriction removed in changeset/143853632

You don't need to add access=permissive here (or any other value for the access tag), as it's a public *right* of way. Tagging as highway=bridleway already implies foot=yes + bicycle=yes + horse=yes + (everything else)=no. Adding access=permissive effectively turns it into a permissive route for motor vehicles, which is unlikely to be correct.

If it's signed as a public bridleway, you could add designation=public_bridleway and change the foot, bicycle and horse access to designated.

There's a guide to PRoW tagging at osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

Thanks for updating this.

I have added public right of way designation and access tags to it, using information from https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-urban/

Has the cycle track along the north side of Chalvey Road West been removed? If not, why have you deleted it?

This was part of the botched TfLCID import, abandoned in 2023-01. TfL's surveyors took photographs in 2017, which are part of the dataset. It is highly unlikely that @luxiaghd looked at these, or any other data sources in order to understand the context of the imported node.

https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG071380_1.jpg
https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG071380_2.jpg

Reverted in changeset/143713694

Hi,

You have tagged your business as a solar panel (which won't render on most map styles), rather than as your shop/office/factory etc. which is presumably located here.

If you would like some help, I would be happy to provide it.

Thanks. I'll be down there next Sunday, so I'll check whether the object has been duplicated.

This isn't a highway=service road, so I have restored it to highway=secondary. I suspect this may have been an unintended result of text completion in the iD editor.