Pity you didn't also notice that the building=yes objects which had name=House were also traced on top of buildings which had already been mapped.

Hi, welcome to OSM and thank you for adding this footpath.

It appears to be a public footpath, so if you wanted you could also add the public right of way (PRoW) tags to it, in this case:
foot=designated
designation=public_footpath
prow_ref=MR3

There's a tool to check PRoW progress here, with guidance on how to map and tag them here:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/tonbridge-malling/malling-rural/

Thanks for confirming. I've undeleted No 1 and updated its listed building data.
way/11828338

When was Gasholder No. 1 (the Grade II Listed one) demolished?

Thanks for deleting the duplicates, but when a new mapper does this, would you mind commenting on their changeset so they know there's a problem? Two months later, @AdamLegg is still making the same mistake, probably because nobody has explained the problem.

Thanks - and keep up the good work spotting QA problems.

changeset/134414016

Hi and thanks for updating the map!

Just a couple of comments on this changeset, which might be helpful with other buildings you add:

1) The name=* key is for the unique name of an object, not just a general description. If there isn't an appropriate tag, you can use description=*, but in this case you could use building=house. I've linked to the documentation on these below.

name=*
building=house

2) You've traced some houses on top of houses which had already mapped. Please could you delete the duplicates?

I hope that's helpful. If you need any assistance, please don't hesitate to ask.

Rob

It's awaiting inspection - https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/1594430

Hi,

I've changed way/1126531149 across the A12 slip roads to not:highway=footway. Although it's perfectly possible and legal to cross here (and I sometimes do just that), it results in all the pedestrian routers I've tried taking the informal shortcut rather than the actual crossings.

e.g.
osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.53066%2C-0.01232%3B51.52849%2C-0.01819#map=19/51.52958/-0.01526&layers=N

The School Street restrictions will be revoked from 2023-04-03.

These applied to Badminton Close, Leys Close, Marlborough Hill, Ranmoor Close, Ranmoor Gardens and Rugby Close

Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (School Streets) (No. 3) (Revocation) Traffic Order 2023
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4320503

Really? What's the name of this new museum?

No problem - it wasn't a mistake on your part anyway.

I suspect that when the members of the eruv boundary were consolidated into a single way, they inherited the barrier=fence and access=private tags from what were originally separate members of the boundary.

Thanks for spotting it and fixing it.

The Victoria and Albert Museum has been mapped in OpenStreetMap since 2008.

relation/29795

Does way/202984061 really need any tags? It's the sole member of a boundary relation for an eruv (which has all the relevant tags), but the area it encloses certainly isn't private.

That's great, thank you!

No need to apologise! It's absolutely fine and won't cause any problems for anyone else.

Doing the necessary "plumbing" to connect it up for routing and accessibility can be a bit tedious, but I think it's worth it on busier roads.

If it would be helpful, I could take a look at a bit of Horn Lane tomorrow and do a couple of the crossings as an example? (Note that some mappers differ in how they map crossings, so there isn't one "right" way to do anything)

Hi,

Could I ask what all these pavements are for? They're not connected to anything else via crossings, so won't actually be used by any routing software.

Separate sidewalks can be really useful for pedestrian routing on main roads with defined crossing points. Mapping the crossings as well allows a lot of accessibility features like tactile paving and lowered kerbs to be added (a survey with StreetComplete, or Bing Streetside/Mapillary imagery can be useful for this).

Separate sidewalks on long residential streets without any crossings can be a little less helpful, as it can result in a router taking the scenic route around via the nearest crossing or junction.

Hi,

Thanks for updating OpenStreetMap!

For the private car park you've added, you might want amenity=parking + parking=surface, as amenity=parking_space is for micro-mapping of individual spaces within car parks.

amenity=parking
amenity=parking_space

Hi and thanks for updating OSM.

You probably need something like oneway=yes together with oneway:bicycle=no here.

If there's a contraflow cycle lane, tagging suggestions here might help.
cycleway=*

I hope that's of some help to you.

Surely fixing the tag would have been removing the double colon, rather than simply deleting an otherwise correct tag with a lifestyle prefix?

proposed::highway=unclassified -> proposed:highway=unclassified

The mapper who added the tag is probably more familiar with ongoing changes within the London Legacy Development Corporation's area than you.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for spotting it. It should now be fixed, along with a couple of short gaps.

Rob