* look at this user again, I mean

@SomeoneElse perhaps you'd like to look at this user with your DWG hat on?

No, deleting a residential driveway does not make it "more accurate". Reverted.

What has a poor innocent private residential driveway ever done to deserve the busmiles approach to random access tagging? Reverted.

@Spaghetti Monster because users of Busmiles have a Discord group where they discuss how to tag for the renderer so that their bus journeys logged on that site "snap" to OpenStreetMap.

They rarely take the trouble to understand what OSM access tags actually mean, do not respond to changeset comments and do not care that their edits have adverse consequences for real-World users of OSM data.

IMHO any changeset which mentions busmiles and misapplies access tags should be reverted immediately and the user reported to DWG.

Ideally, Busmiles would start using bus route relations instead of doing undisclosed and uncredited routing with OSM data. Failing that, executing 'rm -rf ./' from the root of their source tree would be great.

No, not more accurate. This looks suspiciously like more tagging for the renderer

Please read the documentation, particularly the part which states that in the UK, highway=trunk applies to "Primary A road (green signs)". This section of the A413 has white signs and was correctly mapped as highway=primary.

highway=trunk

Reverted, obviously. changeset/154262968

No, not more accurate. There is no physical separation of carriageways at this junction, so your edit was tagging for the renderer. Please read the linked wiki page.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Reverted in changeset/154262371

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I am not sure what you were trying to do here, but you have inadvertently removed the place=town tag from the node (point) representing Biggin Hill. I have restored this.

Were you trying to add a scout campsite and if so is there anything I can do to help you?

I've reverted all of @Lewwy's changesets from 2024-07-21 and sent an email to DWG about Busmiles users attempting to tag for the renderer.

@jpennycook and @Mateusz Konieczny - these edits and similar misguided changes to access tagging have been made because @Lewwy and others want their journeys recorded on https://busmiles.uk/ to "snap" to OpenStreetMap. It's effectively mapping for the renderer, although the Busmiles website is a little short on information about how it uses OSM data (a credit beyond that shown via Leaflet.js would be nice). It would help if Busmiles used bus route relations where its users could make genuine and useful contributions to OSM data. Instead of this, we have wild stabs in the dark at access tagging, possibly encouraged by discussion on the Busmiles Discord server.

To summaries the effect of this and other edits: the part of Rookes Way bringing traffic from London Road to West Berkshire Community Hospital now has:
* a requirement that cyclists dismount
* was 1 lane, but is now of unknown width
* was lit, but now has unknown lighting status
* had a 40mph speed limit, but now has an unknown speed limit
* was one way, but is now bidirectional
* had an asphalt surface, but the surface is now unknown
* is forbidden to ALL motor vehicles except buses and PSVs

None of these changes can be justified, but making the hospital apparently inaccessible to drivers approaching from London Road is NOT an acceptable side effect of trying to make your journeys on busmiles look prettier.

The problem with the suggested approach is that the bus and psv keys are not synonyms, nor are the values yes and designated. PSVs include vehicles other than buses and there needs to be some evidence that the access restriction or exemption *really* applies to all PSVs and not just buses.

If busmiles doesn't work with the bus tag alone, that is a problem for their developers rather than a reason to break OSM. You are not the first busmiles user to add psv tags or to misunderstand what motor_vehicle=designated means.

People use OSM data for real-world routing applications, so misapplying access tags can cause more significant inconvenience than failing to snap a bus route to a map.

Bus routes can be accurately represented in OSM using route relations. It would be a lot more helpful if busmiles used these rather than interfering with access tags which people have taken the effort to map and survey accurately. e.g. Bus 1C: Newbury Wharf => Thatcham => Newbury Wharf
relation/17716750

Buses were already allowed through. Adding motor_vehicle=designated means that ALL motor vehicles are now allowed through.

These were already tagged as bus=yes. If a road is already tagged with bus=yes and busmiles does not do what you expect, please take this up with the busmiles developers rather than adding unnecessary psv=designated tags to OSM.

Traffic calming tags can be added to the entire length of a highway segment if they are not mapped as individual nodes on the highway. Please do not delete the tag from the highway unless you have also mapped the individual traffic calming features as nodes.

traffic_calming=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I notice you have used the value "designated" for several access tags. Is your understanding of this tag that the highway is only for designated vehicles of that class? If so, the tag value you probably want is private or permit.

A road tagged with e.g. motor_vehicle=designated means that it is designated for use by ALL motor vehicles.

For example, this section of service road leading off the Eastrop Roundabout has had the tags
foot=yes + motor_vehicle=designated + psv=yes
added to the existing tagging of
vehicle=private + bus=yes + taxi=yes

The sign in the available Bing street side imagery is TSRGD diagram 617, prohibiting all vehicles except taxis and service vehicles. Unless this sign has been changed, the access tags should be only this:
vehicle=private + taxi=yes
(buses and other PSVs are not exceptions and no assertion can be made about foot access)

way/190893357
https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.527503%7E-0.161855&lvl=19.1&mo=om.1&pi=-1.4&style=x&dir=232.8

The reason why changing highway=footway to highway=path can be problematic is that the default access for footway is clear (foot=yes, bicycle etc. = no). With highway=path, this ceases to be well-defined.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Thanks for updating this. You could also add the tag prow_ref="White Notley FP 13" to capture the ref.

This tool might be useful if you're mapping your local public rights of way:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/braintree/white-notley/

Please don't change highway=footway to highway=path unless there's a really good reason to do so. If you think the original mappers made a mistake, you probably haven't understood their intent or the tagging.

Thanks for spotting that, should have been yes to both. Fixed in changeset/154161336