I'm discussing the idea with @syonist of adding more standard tags to the named trees (species, species:en, species:wikidata, etc.) in the hope that it makes it more useful for future data consumers.

The fact you have *added* individual trees in changeset/116383073 rather contradicts whatever point you may have had. I am reverting your deletions.

Are/were you Mapper50, by any chance?

Yes, you can use tags like species=*, leaf_type=*, leaf_cycle=* on a natural=wood or landuse=forest=* object. You can't meaningfully use them on leisure=park.

The trees which you deleted in this changeset do not fall within the mapped natural=wood polygons and are clearly visible as individual trees in Bing aerial imagery. Several of them also correspond to trees in the tree data supplied by LB Hounslow to the Greater London Authority in 2018 (as open data).

I am struggling to find any legitimate justification for the deletion. Perhaps you can point me to the relevant article in the wiki?

That's not really the point. Another mapper has taken the time to map those trees, and in your other mass deletion, to identify the species (although not with species=* etc.). Whether you or I think that mapping them as individual nodes is necessary is neither here nor there.

Do the trees exist?

Do the trees exist?

Trees removed in changeset/116382236 by new mapper @BorekSigar

Hi, many thanks for updating OSM.

Please could you move the gates from the intersections of Downland Close/Cadbury Close with High Road to their actual locations on the service roads, unless the gates are really on High Road itself? This might cause a problem for routing software otherwise.

barrier=gate

Hi, thanks for updating OSM.

You could tag it as cuisine=italian (see cuisine=* ).

Salvino appears to be mapped as both a node ( node/4501109958 ) and an area ( way/864126692 ). If you need help merging those, please let me know.

No problem. Many thanks.

What do you mean "not fixed"? If the objects still exist, as seems likely, please don't delete them from OSM.

Hi, you asked for a review of your edit. It looks fine to me, thanks for updating the map.

The gate only really needs the access=private tag, as it covers all transport modes, but there's no need to change it. The iD editor has an unfortunate way of prompting for access values which aren't really necessary or appropriate unless there's an exception to the default for that type of highway or the access=* tag used.

I can understand that, as I tend to map more pedestrian than cycling infrastructure. Something to render a dedicated cycle track would help, but we're hindered in the UK by almost never being able to truthfully tag a cycleway as foot=no. There doesn't really seem an appropriate value of cycleway=* to cover it.

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/114262230

Perhaps the following might work for QEOP:

1) Named ways >=3m wide:
highway=pedestrian + motor_vehicle=private + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive + segregated=no

2) Ways <3m wide:
highway=footway + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive + segregated=no

3) Ways 3m wide, unless a dead end for cyclists:
highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=private + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive + segregated=no

Last year someone changed the whole lot to footway due to a misguided idea about pedestrian priority (see changeset/89374914 ), so this is part of a gradual return to the status quo ante.

In general, almost every path in QEOP appears to be a permissive shared cycleway, most of which are 3m or more wide (and should probably also be tagged with motor_vehicle=private as they are used as such by service and event vehicles). From a routing or other data consumer's point of view, it doesn't matter which value is used.

Preferring cycleway could certainly be accused of tagging for the OSM Carto renderer, but I would argue that it's also compatible with the use described in
osm.wiki/Duck_tagging

If you're particularly unhappy with it, I'm happy to revert and just keep the "main" paths as highway=cycleway|pedestrian + segregate=no + foot=permissive + bicycle=permissive + motor_vehicle=private

After sharing Here East's tweet, I found an LB Hackney announcement about Gainsborough Bridge, which states that it "opened to pedestrians and cyclists", so I think changing it to highway=cycleway seems justified.

https://news.hackney.gov.uk/council-and-lldc-drive-sustainable-transport-improvements-in-hackney-wick/

Thanks!

Accidental upload of raw FHRS data for Gosport deleted in changeset/112644452

Presumably these four shops have closed permanently, is the building being redeveloped?

If it's a ground-level tunnel, it would probably be better to change it to tunnel=building_passage and delete the layer=1 tag.
tunnel=building_passage

For the Komoot user who appears to have been the source of the complaint, Komoot appears to have used the highway=path ways only for mountain bike routing.

Had the user chosen bike touring, road cycling, or even gravel riding, then Komoot would have selected legal routes.