Hi, welcome and thanks for updating OpenStreetMap.

If you want to change the building from building=apartments to building=yes (probably correct given the associated address interpolation way), you can simply update the tag. There is no need to delete the object and its history to achieve this.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

You asked for a review of this changeset, so I've taken a quick look.

One think you might want to change is to use natural=wood when mapping tree cover as an area, as natural=tree_row is intended to be used as a linear feature. Links to the wiki documentation for both tags are below.

natural=wood
natural=tree_row

I'm fairly sure that there isn't a very small park somewhere inside the Guy's Hospital building. It certainly isn't visible on Bing aerial imagery.

osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers

Unfortunately, we cannot use Google's imagery for OSM as we do not have explicit permission to use their copyrighted data.

osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F

When you say "latest street map images", what is the source of these: Bing Streetside, Mapillary, or something else?

Thanks - that's rather more thorough than I managed with a dying phone yesterday.

I think it could be worth splitting highway area way/373404383 into areas for each of the radial paths (and splitting the linear ways passing through the central "square"), as routers may just take account of the surface=asphalt otherwise.

Hi,

The cycleway (way/860863241) you mapped in this changeset was changed to a bridleway with horse=designated and bicycle=designated in changeset #103145885. No source was given for this change and there appears to be no evidence from Kent CC PRoW data that any PRoW other than the parallel public footpath SD72.

The mapper also adds an entirely redundant access=no to every PRoW he edits. While adding this to (e.g.) a public footpath mapped as highway=footway + foot=designated will not affect routing, it changes the OSM Carto rendering from a coloured dashed line to faint grey and as such should be considered harmful.

NB the mapper does not respond changeset comments.

Footpath repaired in changeset/103185778

How does adding a redundant access=no "clarify" anything? Changing the rendering of a footway (red dashes) and a bridleway (green dashes) to faint grey hardly makes things clearer.

Only the public footpath appears to be designated as a PRoW. What is your source for the parallel cycleway having changed to a (designated, if mis-tagged) public bridleway?
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/dartford-rural/

#DWG

Hi

A mapper with an unfortunate habit of adding redundant access=no tags to PRoWs (no effect on routing, but highly detrimental to rendering) has also changed footpaths to horse=no + bicycle=no in changeset/103093508

I have no idea whether horses and bicycles are allowed on these footpaths, but as you appear to have local knowledge, please could you check them and reinstate as horse/bicycle=permissive if appropriate?

I have removed the access=no tags and added fixme tags in changeset/103127934

What is your source for this change?

Also, as I have pointed out before, access=no + foot=yes on a highway=footway is not merely redundant, but causes the footway to be rendered as grey dashes rather than red. Please stop adding unnecessary access tags. #DWG

Hi, welcome to OSM.

I'm afraid that your first changeset obliterated much of Lambeth Palace, so I've reverted it in
changeset/102951740

Thanks for clearing up my notes.

What is your source for this designation? Also, access=no is redundant for highway=bridleway. If it is a public bridleway, adding a your source in the changeset comment and designation=public_bridleway, prow_ref=* and foot=designated would help.

If you're not setting bicycle=no, you aren't doing what your changeset comment claims. If you have a highway=track with access=no and no other access tags, you're specifying no rights for anyone in any mode of transport.

With the exception of highway=path objects, that's not what you're doing.

A highway=footway does not have implicit access=yes, it has an implicit access of foot=yes (so needs an explicit foot=designated on a public footpath). All adding a redundant access=no tag does is cause the path to be rendered in grey. This is unhelpful.

Dragged node in St Joseph's Place, Glasgow repaired in changeset/102424883

Comment should refer to Loughton FP 25

Were the deleted footways determined to be no longer extant by a ground/GPS survey?