@VLD282 thanks! I've removed the sidewalks and added a couple of accessibility details in changeset/161465072

No problem, I saw Andrew's more detailed comment on your other changeset after I'd posted here.

With pedestrian routing applications built upon OSM data, we have to hope that it will be sensible and assign a high cost to edges which have maxspeed=70 mph and/or and maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_dual (already mapped here) and no sidewalk or verge (not yet mapped).

If you felt inclined, you could add appropriate sidewalk and verge tags where they're missing. I've linked to the documentation for these tags below.

Happy mapping!

sidewalk=*
verge=*

Please don't do this unless pedestrians are explicitly prohibited by law and there is signage to indicate this (specifically the pedestrians prohibited sign, TSRGD diagram 625.1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg )..

Access tags in OpenStreetMap represent the legal situation, not an individual's vague feeling about whether a route might not be the most pleasant choice for a stroll.

access=*

Hi @VLD282

While there are no firm guidelines in the wiki which support @Derick Rethans emphasis here, it might be worth considering when it might be useful to added separate sidewalks and when it might be better to tag them as sidewalk=$side and sidewalk:$side:surface=* on the way representing the road.

If you have a road with reasonably spaced formal crossing points, usually a major road, then adding separate sidewalks *and* crossings can be very useful for pedestrian routing. If care is taken to capture all the accessibility features like kerb height and tactile paving, this is also useful for routing applications for users with mobility and visual impairments. The nearby A404 Harrow Road is a good example of this.

In the case of Bathurst Gardens, which is a quiet residential street, pedestrians can cross safely at any point. It is also a street where the houses are pre-motor car terraces (very common in towns and cities in the UK), so there are few or no driveways intersecting the sidewalks. With separate sidewalks here and no crossing points or intersection driveways, a pedestrian router will make crossing the street from number 90 to number 87 take a "scenic" route adding half a kilometre via the crossing at the Wrottesley Road end ( osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.533842%2C-0.226386%3B51.533575%2C-0.226327 ). This became even worse moving towards the junction with College Road, as the separate sidewalks you added were not connected to the mapped crossing at that end (fixed pro tem in changeset/161455611 ). If you are adding separate sidewalks, please also remember to update the tags on the parent highway.

In this case, I feel that these sidewalks should be removed, however I am not in the habit of deleting the work of other active users without discussion and will not do so unless you or someone else from Meta's mapping team are satisfied that this is reasonable.

And your vandalism will be reverted and reported to DWG.

It's interesting that you should think that the StreetComplete AddPathSurface quest has added anything. The fact that none of modified ways is at v1 might be a clue here.

You had ample opportunity to participate in the discussion on OSM Community here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491 - and could also have demonstrated the minimal courtesy of replying to my changeset comments.

The wiki does not support your opinion of separately mapped sidewalks. Feel free to put propose formal deprecation, so that it can be voted into oblivion.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. If you're trying to add your company to the map, you'll need to add tags to the building like "name", "website", "contact:phone", etc. so that data consumers know you're there.

You also need to add a tag which tells data consumers what sort of business you are. I think the closest fit may be office=transport, but you'll have to look at the documentation and decide for yourselves - osm.wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dtransport

If you would like any help, please feel free to ask.

If you're mapping a height restriction, you probably want the maxheight tag rather than height.
maxheight=*

Thanks for the confirmation. I'll update them shortly.

It's correctly tagged as highway=service + service=driveway + access=private, as it was the first time you deleted it. It was then re-added without access=private tag missing, because it is visible on aerial and street side imagery (and not just that provided by Bing). It is in any case unlikely that people using OpenStreetMap-based tools would be directed into a dead-end road even without appropriate access tags.

Your access road is shown on some current Ordnance Survey maps as a normal part of Strawberry Hill Road (same width, street name labelled), which may be more likely as a cause of people believing it to be a public highway.

It is also included in OS Open USRN (Unique Street Reference Number) with the same Designated Street Name ref. 22403854 as the main part of Strawberry Hill Road.

In the OS Open Names product, the Named Road point for Strawberry Hill Road (ref. osgb4000000030496469) is located on your access road, rather than on the main part of the road as I would expect.

I suggest that you contact Ordnance Survey for an explanation of why this is the case. The highways department of LB Richmond upon Thames and your ward councillors may also be able to help.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please read the following:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
service=driveway
access=private

Has this now reopened? The ES article suggests that the closure lasted less than 3 weeks. If there have been no further changes, foot=permissive + bicycle=permissive would probably be appropriate unless there are further time-dependent restrictions.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/kensington-palace-gardens-london-cyclists-safety-measures-general-election-b1165886.html

In that case, you could add access=private + sport=volleyball

What sport is played here, if not tennis?

That's great, thanks!

Rather than adding a bicycle=no access tag, it would be better to split the footway and map the stairs. Adding bicycle=no to highway=footway may have no effect, as that is the default.

Is it just the one set of stairs, where the path kinks to the NW of the end of Sunmead Road?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

In order for data consumers to understand what you have added, you need a "top level" tag, which in this case may be office=company. The documentation linked below should help you, but please feel free to ask if you need any help.

office=*

Then I suggest that you update the wiki page for private=* to reflect that. Meanwhile, private=residents is still wrong for these streets. Streets which are, incidentally, less than 1km from y home.

This was also discussed on OSM Community without reaching any definite conclusion, perhaps continue there?

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/resident-parking-access-permit-gb/106069/3