I'm not quite sure why 42 Osborne Road was filtered out by one of the SQL stages. I'll take a look at that next time I'm in all day and can run each step one at a time and see why that happened.

There will be other gaps because the script which processes the OSM XML file halts at 100 features or 10 postcodes, whichever comes first.

The main aim of this is to get as many missing postcodes into OSM as I can, so I won't worry too much about gaps now.

Merci!

Ends of crossing ways connected to the kerb nodes, which were already mapped (in 2017) in changeset/174198530

The segments of kerb which had been mapped included information about the kerb height and the presence of tactile paving. Mapping separate sidewalks, but ignoring accessibility information which has already been surveyed is very unhelpful to users with visual or mobility impairments.

I've truncated the decorative sidewalk stubs from this and related changesets to the nearest junctions, as they are detrimental to pedestrian navigation.
changeset/174196909

The unconnected crossing node looks like a fat-fingered copy and paste error, removed in changeset/174060650

No, node/2371177121 was unintentional, fixed in changeset/174060538

Oh dear, that's embarrassing. Fixed in changeset/174060418

Has the Victoria branch of Vagabond Wines at this location really closed and been replaced by your office?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding the restaurant. Has this replaced "Slurp", previously mapped at 17 Frith Street?

Thanks!

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, we cant use Google Maps as a source for OpenStreetMap as it is prohibited by their terms of service. There's more information on the OSM wiki at osm.wiki/Google

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for updating this. I have one suggestion, which is that if the paths are permissive for pedestrians (tagged as foot=permissive), then the same would probably apply for cyclists (bicycle=permissive). Tagging as bicycle=yes implies a legal right of way for cyclists.

access=*

This is the sort of thing where I really should write an OSM diary entry describing what I'm doing and why! When I start adding the actual restrictions, I'll write something.

I think parking:$side:zone probably does have a place even where other parking tags haven't (yet) been set.

Firstly, there's a traffic order which includes that street in a CPZ, which is the only tag we currently have for it. Maybe a relation would be better, but none has yet been proposed for this purpose.

Secondly, when other parking tags are added from StreetComplete survey or aerial imagery, it will make it a lot easier to set and keep up to date the parking conditional access and restriction tags for marked bays (and possibly single yellow lines). I haven't actually started doing this yet, but will do soon.

Finally, even where waiting is prohibited at all times, many parking authorities print the CPZ after the street name on the penalty charge notice.

Waltham Forest recently reissued their parking-related restrictions in a single order, which has allowed me to tag almost all the CPZ streets there. In Newham, it involves a lot more digging around in The Gazette.

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business. I've tweaked the tagging a little to reflect OSM tagging conventions.

No problem, thanks.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business to the map. I've moved the information from the surrounding retail area to a separate POI. You may need to correct the position slightly.

node/13235555192

Thanks! I was expecting to have a few more notes to resolve when I got home.

* source=The Waltham Forest (Parking Places, Loading Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order 2025

* source=The Waltham Forest (Parking Places, Loading Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order 2025