Hi @swappa, many thanks for that.

Please could you explain what benefit this has and point me to where this mechanical edit was discussed?

There is no reference to direction=* being deprecated for public_transport=stop_position on the wiki public_transport=stop_position

There may also be consumers of OSM data for purposes of non-bus routing which might find the presence and direction of a stop_position node useful. Those consumers should not need to consume and process every bus route relation to which the node belongs in order to infer the direction. That is why I have tended to add this and why I object to its removal without prior discussion.

Please could you open a discussion about this at https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Thanks!

Thanks, and apologies for missing it.

I've got at least two bus route relations to repair as well. The mapper who introduced all the pretend dual carriageways created a few gaps, which I'm afraid I've added to.

What are you trying to map here? There clearly isn't a huge building here, so I'll delete the building=yes tag.

I'll also remove the incorrect layer=1 tag, as adding layer=* in response to the iD editor's warnings is only appropriate where features really are at different heights. That is often the case for bridges, tunnels and canopies (building=roof), but much less common otherwise.

I'll leave the geometry and other tags intact.

Thanks. I'll try to walk the Strood/Rochester - Rainham bit soon and check the Saxon Shore way signage. I haven't been there for 10+ years, but I have a feeling that it may be a little bit like the Capital Ring and only signed on one side of the road in places.

That's great, thanks for providing confirmation so quickly.

Hi @vineela and thanks for the response. Please could you also ask the mapper to reply to my comments on changesets creating or reversing one way streets. These are not necessarily incorrect, as I realise that your mappers have access to driver feedback in addition to the sources available to me. In general, changes to one way working require traffic orders which are usually (for permanent changes made by London councils) published in The Gazette under the OSM-compatible Open Government Licence.

^ 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