^ Changeset comment should read "updated sidewalk and highway tagging in Gillingham"

No response to changeset comment, reverted in changeset/162200736

No response to changeset comment, reverted in changeset/162200736

No response to changeset comment, reverted in changeset/162200464

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your store.

Rather than using shop=running_store, which isn't documented or used in the UK, you might be better off using shop=sports with any additional tags which apply. The documentation for this tag is at shop=sports

It's entirely up to you, so feel free to ignore my suggestion.

I've tweaked your opening hours to use the syntax expected by OSM's data consumers.

These streets are not access=private, as this would imply a fully private gated community, which isn't the case here. That would only work if there were a staffed gatehouse, which is somewhat improbable for social housing built in the 1920s.

Setting this blocks pedestrian access, which is incorrect. There are consumers of OSM data for routing other than Amazon's deliver drivers.

I also do not believe that delivery vehicles, taxis and the vehicles of other visitors are excluded from the estate roads.

More appropriate tagging might be access=destination + ownership=private.

Reverted in changeset/162156017

Thanks! It may take a few weeks for the change to propagate to cycle routing software based on OSM data. I mostly use Komoot, which typically takes 1-2 weeks.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for spotting and correcting that.

From Bing's street side imagery, it looks like the segregated cycle path starts between Mallard Close and Wigeon Close and it's a block paved footpath (only) South of there. Is that still the case?

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to he tagging here changeset/162128649

You also need to pay attention to other tags affected by a split like this, e.g. sidewalk, parking, cycleway.

Fixed in changeset/162123099

If you split a carriageway around a crossing island, the original crossing node tagged with crossing:island=yes needs to be replaced with two separate crossings tagged with crossing:island=no

Please could you explain what the point of splitting a carriageway around a crossing island is, if you do not also map the crossings and traffic calming features.

You have also dragged a cafe several kilometres away into the wrong position.

Please revert.

What is your source for the introduction of one way working on Chapter Road between its junctions with Deacon Road.

There does not appear to be a relevant traffic order in The Gazette
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?text=%22Chapter+Road%22&categorycode=G208040000&noticetypes=&location-postcode-1=&location-distance-1=1&location-local-authority-1=The+London+Borough+of+Brent%253ABrent&numberOfLocationSearches=1&start-publish-date=&end-publish-date=&edition=&london-issue=&edinburgh-issue=&belfast-issue=&sort-by=latest-date&results-page-size=100

What is your source for the introduction of one way working at the SE end of Queen's Road?

I cannot find a traffic order reversing the direction of the one way working in Ryder Street. What is your source for this?

The traffic signals and crossings which you have deleted were added by mappers who are (a) local and (b) competent.

Please revert this changeset.

Why are you not listed in your bio or the list of Amazon contributors as such?

This isn't a dual carriageway, as the lane separation is mostly a painted area, not a physical barrier.

By all means split the carriageway around the crossing islands, but if you're going to do that you need to make sure that traffic signals, crossings and bus stops are mapped correctly.

Do you need any help to revert this changeset?

osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Thanks for spotting and fixing that. Late last year, a mapper (who has now thankfully deleted their account) created a lot of egregious mapping for the renderer. Fixing it is taking a while, but @papaj and @jajanja3 are doing a pretty good job of it.

(Review requested)

Hi, thanks for updating your details. It looks fine to me.

Perhaps not so much a correction as a misunderstanding of what highway=cycleway means?

Thanks. There's also a proposed traffic order referring to Disraeli Walk. However, a source which definitely isn't compatible with OSM gives another name.

I added a note as well:
note/4607531