More cycle lane tags added without checking the available imagery.

More cycle lanes imported from #tflcid without condescending to check for conflicts with existing tagging or more recent aerial imagery.

Added cycle lanes without checking the aerial imagery or conflicts with existing mapping. Over a year later, I'm still wasting time as an unpaid volunteer clearing up the mess caused by your paid "mapping". Thanks.

What value or additional information does adding crossing:markings=yes convey when added to crossing=marked? Neither actually give data consumers any useful information about the actual type of crossing.

All this does is tell me that there is a marked crossing which is marked.

This changeset appears to have introduced a lot of separated carriageways where no physical separation actually exists.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138527531

Are the licenses of the site plan and council planning documents compatible with OpenStreetMap?

osm.wiki/Copyright_information_for_UK_mappers

Adding cycle lanes without checking existing tagging or more recent aerial imagery was extremely unhelpful. 18 months later I'm still clearing up the mess from the paid "mappers" working on TfLCID.

Is this not just mapping for the renderer?

The curve here may be more visually appealing, but it does not really exist - the highway simply splits between single and dual carriageway. If TomTom want features like this smoothed, surely they can implement it in their own map tiles.

Additional nodes removed in changeset/145369195

If this is a decorative cascade, it would be better to map it as amenity=fountain + fountain=decorative than waterway=waterfall, as it isn't part of a stream or river.

amenity=fountain
waterway=waterfall

Just a quick update on this - I'm working through Greater London a borough at a time and replacing sidewalk=separate and sidewalk=none. So far, Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Westminster and the City should be complete.

At some point, changing cycleway=separate to cycleway:$side=separate might be worth doing. It should also help to fix more of the paid "mapping" done as part of the TfLCID conflation fiasco.

Is the motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (Mo-Fr 07:00-19:00) restriction still effective?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for adding this.

An alternative way to tag this might be as tunnel=building_passage, depending on how the road goes under the building.
tunnel=building_passage

Thanks for updating this.

You could also change highway=path (where routers have to guess access) with highway=footway, which implies foot=yes and everything else=no.

You appear to have tagged a section of Vestry Street as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

As adding foot=no broke pedestrian routing between Nile Street and East Road, it has been reversed in changeset/145183105

As this is presumably a privately owned access road to a retail park, access=customers might be a better fit on both the gates and the roads.

Non-existent pedestrian prohibitions removed in changeset/144890630

Reverted in changeset/144890326

Does this planting look like it's intended to be sustainable urban drainage? Last time I looked on the wiki, there didn't seem to be anything appropriate to tag the drainage aspect with.

You appear to have tagged sections of Ring Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Thanks for updating the test tracks. Although the previous tagging of highway=service + service=driveway was clearly wrong, they're not really highway=track (used for minor land-access roads that are not considered part of the general-purpose road network). I've changed the test tracks to highway=raceway, which is probably a better fit.