I'll add postcodes and UPRNs to the split buildings in the next day or two.

The kink in way/1084067488 looks a bit sharper than it should, but it's where a short single lane section changes to one traffic lane + a parking lane. The line vehicles follow does not really deviate here, but the centre of the carriageway does.

Thanks. I should have set a reminder to clear those once the permanent traffic order came into force.

Can I assume that you are a busmiles.uk user, trying to make your journeys as displayed on that website correspond to the actual routes?

As far as I can tell, busmiles.uk does not use OSM data to produce bus routes to overlay on OSM Carto map tiles. If it did, OSM would be credited as a data source at https://busmiles.uk/legal

Please DO NOT make edits to OSM access tags if you do not understand them, in order to try to influence the representations of journeys on a third party website.

Your edits will not affect the representation of journeys on busmiles.uk, but they will adversely affect real world users of OpenStreetMap data.

In this case, Wood Street was already tagged with access=no + bus=yes + psv=yes + bicycle=yes. The sign at its junction with Horse Fair is TSRGD Diagram 953 "Route for use by buses, pedal cycles and taxis only", so taxi=yes is missing.

Incorrectly adding motor_vehicle=designated grants access to ALL motor vehicles, which will break routing applications which actually use OpenStreetMap data and attempt to send vehicles along a route where they are prohibited. It's tantamount to vandalism.

This changeset and all other changesets where you have edited access tags will be reverted shortly.

Hi, thanks for adding this. It has already been mapped, but unfortunately does not render on the standard OSM Carto map tiles.

I have deleted the POI you added as a duplicate and added the tag tourism=attraction to the existing object, which may help.

Not being rendered on the map is not a problem shared with hedge mazes, as we can map the hedges in addition to the bounding polygon and the hedges are rendered.

way/393397210

osm.wiki/Mazes

Thanks. I suspect that @maxfranks and @SophiaD123 may be the same vandal, so they'll probably be back again.

osm.org/user_blocks/15563

This is already mapped as way/33791262

No problem. I think the way the quest is presented could be improved for the situation in the UK.

You appear to have tagged sections of Chessington Road and the B284 roundabouts 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.

You appear to have tagged a section of the A4174 South of Siston Hill Roundabout 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.

Having looked at the POIs imported within the UK, these all appear to duplicate existing objects. I can see no value in adding an unnamed amenity=bar or amenity=restaurant node next to a named pub.

I can see even less value in mis-tagging a bus-stop as a bar, apparently just because it had the word "Oyster" in its name.

I have reverted the remainder of the UK part of this changeset in changeset/146070139

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please keep your changesets local, as a changeset spanning two continents makes it hard to review.

osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

I note that you have not given a source for your import. This is potentially a problem, as there is no way to determine if your source(s) are compatible with OpenStreetMap.

osm.wiki/Copyright

Why did you remove the highway=trunk tag from the A299 Chelsfield Tunnel in Kent, UK? This has nothing to do with oysters and would break routing, a real world use of OSM data. I have repaired this in changeset/146069283

The non-existent park you created as a POI has also been removed.

It wasn't, now it's gone. Find a lavatory wall and some crayons instead.

Reverted.

Reverted.

Reverted.

Grow up.

Reverted #dwg

Several years on, so am I :-)

I took a a look at a bus route local to me on Busmiles earlier this week.

It uses OSM Carto tiles as a background map via Leaflet, but I do not think it directly uses OSM routing data or bus route relations (OSM is certainly not mentioned as a source at https://busmiles.uk/legal ).

In some cases, it draws a straight line between bus stops. In others, it does appear to follow the courses of roads in OSM, but I suspect these may be provided by a third party.

The islands may have been removed (I updated the crossing node with StreetComplete in December 2021), but why did you also delete the turn restriction relations at this junction?

Restrictions restored in changeset/145879492

#DWG

Thanks for updating this and other damaging "test edits" by @KaneH.