Building outlines reinstated in changeset/150390234

For some reason, you added a layer=1 tag to part of Chichester Mews. If you don't know what a tag means, as is obviously the case here, don't add it. You also dragged part of Chichester Mews onto the corner of a house on Thurlby Road. Repaired in changeset/150382725

You have also added badly traced houses on Broxholm Road and Glennie Road. Drawing terraced houses as if they were rather wonky detached houses is of questionable utility, but I have left these untouched. Someone else will eventually have to waste their time re-drawing them.

You didn't just add some more badly-traced buildings.

Yet again, you dragged part of a highway a long way out of alignment, across other roads and through buildings.

OSM data consumers actually use the mapped highway network for routing. Badly drawn building=yes polygons just make the map look full, but will not be much use until someone else re-traces them accurately, adds the building type, address, etc.

Repaired in changeset/150382021

Boundary repaired in changeset/150381464

Your edit carelessly altered the geometry of a district boundary. If you don't know or care what an object is DON'T CHANGE IT.

OSM data consumers have more use for correct boundaries than they do for a handful of badly-traced buildings.

way/38583570

Would it be worth adding the seamark tagging for wrecks?

osm.wiki/Seamarks/Wrecks

In your edit, you carelessly dragged a node on a cycleway from Thurlow Park Road, across West Dulwich Station onto Glazebrook Close.

This would be bad enough, but in response to potential errors raised by the iD editor, you added railway crossing nodes in the middle of West Dulwich station. These crossings obviously do not exist and there can be no excuse for you to damage the map simply in order to clear an error message.

OpenStreetMap is used by real-world routing applications. It is not a toy and careless edits have consequences.

Unfortunately, you dragged parts of Lansdowne Hill and Lansdowne Wood Close onto a non-existent junction with Prioress Road in your edit.

I have reverted the entire edit in order to restore the geometry of the road network. I've also restored the houses you added, retraced them and tagged them as semi-detached houses.

See:
changeset/150336969
changeset/150337840

Many thanks for adding this detail.

When you're adding separate sidewalks, you can also add tags to the parent street, so that routers and renderers know that they're present.
sidewalk=*#Separately_mapped_sidewalks

Once you have the correct dimensions, it might be better mapped as building=roof + layer=1 + man_made=canopy (it doesn't really need the name tag, but you could put that in the description tag). If you're interested in the 3D representation, you could also add a height tag (height in metres).

building=roof

If you'd like any help with this, please feel free to ask.

This is already mapped as Firework Ait, which appears to have a well attested name. What is your source for the name "Monkey Island"?

way/23678804

Thanks for updating this.

It's probably worth keeping the tracktype=grade2 tag where it's been mapped, even where it isn't a highway=track. It potentially gives useful information to routing software.

tracktype=*

If you're updating public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/bucks/-/downley/

Many thanks for adding these. I find these very useful for planning running and walking routes.

When you add separate sidewalks, would you mind updating the sidewalk tagging on the parent street? It potentially gives a hint to routing software and also makes it easier to query OSM for the extent of sidewalk mapping.

sidewalk=*#Separately_mapped_sidewalks

I've updated the tagging for these new sidewalks in
changeset/150203590

Many thanks for the confirmation and for your quick reply.

I've added a some other tags to the Turnford - Hoddesdon section: dual_carriageway=yes + sidewalk=no + cycleway:left=no, which should also give useful hints to routing software.

Is this an explicitly signed pedestrian prohibition?

If the road isn't a motorway and there are no TSRGD diagram 625.1 signs (link below), there probably isn't a prohibition.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr22

No, it wasn't. It has been correctly tagged as highway=cycleway since it was first mapped in June 2011. I added the segregated=yes tag in October 2018. A StreetComplete user surveyed it in June 2021 and added the tags for the different surfaces.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/116909607

You've added the access tag bicycle=designated and changed foot=yes -> designated. That isn't incorrect, but it doesn't correct any mapping error, real or imagined. The effect of this edit on OSM-based routing software is nil, but it's harmless.

That's probably why the sidewalks were already correctly mapped as highway=footway, which implies bicycle=no. Adding bicycle=dismount is redundant, but harmless.

This edit will have no influence whatsoever on any routing software. If you see a delivery cyclist on the sidewalk, you may have to consider the possibility that they are acting illegally for a reason which has nothing to do with access tagging in OpenStreetMap.

At least this is a case in which HC Rule 64 actually does apply.

I've reverted your vandalism of the shared cycle and foot path between the A13/C3 and Lower Lea Crossing for the following reasons:

1) This is not a pavement/sidewalk, so a spurious justification based on quoting Highway Code Rule 64 without reading or understanding s. 72 Highway Act 1835 fails.

2) The North end of the path has a TSRGD diagram 956 sign (shared cycle and foot path). This is badly faded and possibly vandalised, however this does not revoke the explicit authorisation of cycling here. There is also a fingerpost for pedestrians and cyclists toward East India Dock Basin. Photographs linked in note #4202439

2) At the Southern end, the crossings over the carriageways of Lower Lea Crossing are toucan crossings, not pelican crossings. They are explicitly for both cyclists and pedestrians. If cycling were prohibited along the West side of Bow Creek, this would not be the case.

3) Fingerposts for pedestrians do not convey any implicit prohibition for cycling, they are purely informational.

This will also be referred to DWG.

The set of people who don't understand the Highway Code includes those who use Highway Code Rule 64 as a spurious justification for asserting the existence of a prohibition of cycling on anything other than pavements/sidewalks.

Although it may not be really usable, it's a public bridleway and needs to remain tagged as highway=bridleway.

I have reinstated this and added obstacle=vegetation to reflect the information in the description tag.
obstacle=*