Is there any signage to suggest that Leatherbottle Green really is a living street, or is it just a normal residential street with no additional restrictions?

The building outline is fine, many thanks for adding it.

I am not sure how it could be tagged as a classroom, although amenity=community_centre might work if it's a community garden.

amenity=community_centre

If that doesn't look suitable and you wanted to tag it as more than a building, you could ask here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

Your edit looks fine, although there are a couple if extra things you could do if you wanted.

You could add the fence at the boundary of the residential area and add noexit=yes to the now unconnected ends of Salisbury Road and the footway. These are not essential, but will stop validation software asking mappers to check whether they should be connected.

Links to the wiki documentation are below.

barrier=fence
noexit=*

This node applies to the clock, not the tower, and needs to retain the amenity=clock tag.

The tower itself is mapped (with official_name="Elizabeth Tower") as way/123557148

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

You requested a review of this edit and it looks fine to me. There are other tags which you can add, like operator="Royal Mail", but they are not strictly necessary.

Great work with all your StreetComplete updates, too.

Many thanks for confirming this.

Obviously you wouldn't want to walk along there unless you had to, but pedestrian routers should apply a high cost to dual carriageway trunk road and no sidewalk.

If you're happy to change it, a fresh changeset is quicker and easier than using the reverter plugin in JOSM.

* streetside imagery, not aerial!

I found a "no pedestrians" sign in the aerial imagery just to the North of Airport Roundabout, but it's at an odd angle in some imagery. Sign and confirmation added in #135929841.

The smoothness=excellent tag was added by another user in 2015 and was probably true at the time. I think it was on a TdF route and got resurfaced for PR reasons. Feel free to remove the tag.

Thanks for updating this.

Listed building mapping in England has tended to use the following recently:
heritage:operator=Historic England
ref:GB:nhle=*
inscription_date=*
listed_status=*

The older HE_ref=* key is still very common and there may be instances of ref:GB:he.

I don't think I've seen any instances of heritage:ref=* or heritage:since=* before now and taginfo suggests they are very rare in GB, possibly because they're not documented in the wiki.

heritage=*#England

Spam and vandalism reverted in changeset/135889017 and reported to DWG.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135882477

Are you sure about that - did you actually survey it and notice the barriers at either end, or the notices about the indefinite closure?

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/22767-impound-station-footbridge-closed

Reverted in changeset/135837441

Hi currybum,

Thanks for editing the map with StreetComplete.

You have marked parts of Alton Road (A31) and Runwick Lane as being prohibited for pedestrians. I cannot find any signage indicating that a prohibition exists in the available streetside imagery. Is this a newly signed restriction, or is there some other reason to believe that a prohibition exists?

Please ensure that if you are marking a road as prohibited for pedestrians, that there is actually a restriction on pedestrians. The vast majority of roads in the UK do not prohibit pedestrians, although they may be unsuitable for pedestrians. Many sections of roads, particularly on dual carriageways and parts of complex junctions may be unsuitable for pedestrians, but that does not extinguish the legal right to use them.

Where pedestrians are prohibited, there will usually be a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) on a public highway, or the equivalent health and safety sign on private land.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr22
https://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/safetysigns/prohibitorypedestrians.htm

The StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians Quest ("Add whether roads are prohibited for pedestrians") adds a foot=no or foot=yes access tag to the road, based on the user's answer. The OSM wiki's description of access tagging states that "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."
access=*

Hi Sworrs,

Thanks for editing the map with StreetComplete.

You have marked the northbound carriageway of Blyth Road (A1) where it crosses the Chesterfield Canal as being prohibited for pedestrians. I cannot find any signage indicating that a prohibition exists in the available streetside imagery, either here, or on the slip roads from Retford Road (A620). Is this a newly signed restriction, or is there some other reason to believe that a prohibition exists?

Please ensure that if you are marking a road as prohibited for pedestrians, that there is actually a restriction on pedestrians. The vast majority of roads in the UK do not prohibit pedestrians, although they may be unsuitable for pedestrians. Many sections of roads, particularly on dual carriageways and parts of complex junctions may be unsuitable for pedestrians, but that does not extinguish the legal right to use them.

Where pedestrians are prohibited, there will usually be a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) on a public highway, or the equivalent health and safety sign on private land.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr22
https://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/safetysigns/prohibitorypedestrians.htm

The StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians Quest ("Add whether roads are prohibited for pedestrians") adds a foot=no or foot=yes access tag to the road, based on the user's answer. The OSM wiki's description of access tagging states that "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."
access=*

Hi marikoenig,

Thanks for editing the map with StreetComplete.

You have marked the bridge where Military Road (A3055) crosses Shepherd's Chine as being prohibited for pedestrians, however I cannot find any signage indicating that a prohibition exists in the available streetside imagery. Is this a new restriction, or is there some other reason to believe that a prohibition exists?

Please ensure that if you are marking a road as prohibited for pedestrians, that there is actually a restriction on pedestrians. The vast majority of roads in the UK do not prohibit pedestrians, although they may be unsuitable for pedestrians. Many sections of roads, particularly on dual carriageways and parts of complex junctions may be unsuitable for pedestrians, but that does not extinguish the legal right to use them.

Where pedestrians are prohibited, there will usually be a "pedestrians prohibited" sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) on a public highway, or the equivalent health and safety sign on private land.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr22
https://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/safetysigns/prohibitorypedestrians.htm

The StreetComplete AddProhibitedForPedestrians Quest ("Add whether roads are prohibited for pedestrians") adds a foot=no or foot=yes access tag to the road, based on the user's answer. The OSM wiki's description of access tagging states that "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."
access=*

No problem, the quest is a bit vague in the UK context.

In other countries, there probably isn't a requirement for explicit signage for pedestrians to be prohibited from using the carriageway on roads like this.

We could do with some way of tagging ways where pedestrians are not actually prohibited, but where no routing software should ever contemplate sending them. That doesn't fit with access tagging as currently documented and I have no idea what would work.

Hi,

You have tagged these roads as being prohibited for pedestrians (foot=no) via the StreetComplete app. I cannot find any evidence of "pedestrians prohibited" signs at either end of these sections.

What is your reason for believing that pedestrians are legally prohibited here, rather than it appearing to be inconvenient, unsafe, or inadvisable?

In OSM, access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork.
access=*

OpenStreetMap is a live database and map and absolutely not the place to carry out test edits.

Fully reverted in changeset/135758138

The Scalpel was added in 2017, so I am not entirely sure what the object of this edit was.

You also appear to have inadvertently deleted the adjacent pedestrian area
way/681589348

I've added the PRoW tags to this bridleway, which includes foot=designated.

You may already be aware of this, but you can check the mapping status of PRoWs in Hampshire here:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/hants/

Although walking around the carriageway of Teville Rounadbout is probably unwise, it isn't actually prohibited. There needs to be a sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1) for that, which isn't the case here.

AddProhibitedForPedestrians is not the most helpful of StreetComplete's quests in the UK for most primary and lower classification roads, as it often results in either redundant foot=yes or incorrect foot=no tags. I usually have it disabled.

foot=no
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr22