It was already correctly tagged as motor_vehicle=private, so mis-tagging OpenStreetMap probably won't fix a buggy router. Which routing software are you using?

It was already correctly tagged as motor_vehicle=private, so mis-tagging OpenStreetMap probably won't fix a buggy router. Which routing software are you using?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for relocating the florist.

You don't actually need to set oneway=no on most streets, as the default assumption is that they are two way. Adding the tag does no harm and there is no need to remove it, but in most cases it will have no effect on routing software.
oneway=*#oneway_=_no

I've got a race in Battersea Park next Wednesday, so I'll check if I have time. I've left a note in case I don't.

note/4396917

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please leave meaningful changeset comments describing what you have changed, not "N/A".

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

If this is a private driveway, the tagging which you probably need here is:

highway=service
service=driveway

service=driveway

This would need to be bus=yes or bus=designated as "only" is not a recognised value for access tags.

access=*#List_of_possible_values

If this is a closure for roadworks, it might be better implemented using a conditional restriction.

osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

It's a lot less common than on leisure=pitch or leisure=swimming_pool, but I think it's likely to be useful for data consumers searching for sport facilities.

Please don't make stupid fantasy edits like this.

Hi, thanks for editing OpenStreetMap.

There's an example of a gold postbox here, which might give you some ideas of how to tag it:
node/4987926604

The separate sidewalks which you added in this and probably other nearby changesets were arbitrarily deleted by @Derick Rethans (with the spurious justification that they are "fictitious") in changeset/155281608

I feel that these deletions should be reverted, a it is at best tagging for the renderer and at worst vandalism.

I have opened a discussion about this at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491

Please don't add fictitious values for road surfaces - public highways in Greater London are extremely unlikely to be fine_gravel.

Should the grass running track at Bushey Meads School be tagged with access=private?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding these trees.

In general, the name tag is only used for trees with their own name, e.g. Major Oak in Sherwood Forest ( node/455984558 )

To add the type of tree, you can use tags like species:en (for the common English name) and species (if known). If you would like any help with this, please let me know.

species:en=*
species=*

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491

Fictional?! The footways exist and at least on All Souls Avenue are useful for pedestrian routing.

I spent a great deal of time fixing the decorative sidewalks added by @alisonlung and removing most of them. I did not do that in order for them to be arbitrarily deleted with your spurious justification.

Please revert and discuss your unilateral decision to deprecate separate footpaths in the community forums or Talk-GB.

For the boardwalks, adding bridge=boardwalk might be useful, if the description in the documentation corresponds to the situation on the ground.

bridge=boardwalk

Hi,

Thanks for updating your business address on OpenStreetMap.

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to your last two edits in changeset/155278082
and
changeset/155278168

When you edit OSM, you're editing the live database, rather than submitting an edit for approval.

You can't use Google Maps or other copyrighted material as a source, unless they have a licence which is compatible with OpenStreetMap.

The Google Maps Terms of Use explicitly forbid using Google Maps content - both map data and Google Street View - for making any other content. It includes using them for OSM mapping.
osm.wiki/Google