I'm not convinced that this is correct. My understanding is that road traffic legislation applies to any road to which the public have access (see s. 142 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and s. 192 Road Traffic Act 1988).

As Highview Place isn't lit, but it's only 60-70m long, I wonder if it still counts as a restricted road as all points of it are presumably within 200yds of the nearest street light on Strood Gate?

However, the maxspeed:type=GB:zone30 was definitely wrong, as there's no such thing as a 30 mph zone.

Deleting the Westbound carriageway of the A27 and all its associated tags and replacing it with a way simply tagged highway=trunk + oneway=yes is hardly a correction.

If your routing test does not work as expected, the solution is not to damage the OpenStreetMap database.

Please explain what you were trying to do and what you believe the problem with the OSM data was, *without* making edits which you do not understand.

Reverted in changeset/152171143

Many thanks for adding this section of Wootton St Lawrence FP 22.

If you are trying to improve the mapping of public rights of way in your area, you may find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/hants/basingstoke-deane/wootton-st-lawrence/

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

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence 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 and have therefore reverted your edit.

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.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=50.912299%7E-1.400481&lvl=20.6&mo=om.1&pi=-16.2&style=x&dir=264.3

Thank you.

If you are experiencing unexpected behaviour from OpenStreetMap-based routing software which you are using, you will need to raise a support ticket with the software supplier.

Adding a higher speed limit than the real one might reduce the cost of traversing that edge, but to the detriment of other data consumers.

I would also hope that routing software would ignore a 70mph speed limit set on a single carriageway secondary road in the UK, since this is likely to be a legal impossibility.

You may also be a able to find some assistance on the OSM Community Forums.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

No, you're repeatedly vandalising the database. None of your edits will ever last long enough to get onto the update files which your routing software uses. Give up.

Don't vandalise the OSM database to address faults in defective routing software. Reverted.

There's no such thing as a 65mph speed limit in the UK. Don't vandalise the OSM database by adding fiction in order to make the software you use work, raise a ticket with the software provider.

Reverted, obviously.

Adding an unsigned and presumably fictitious weight restriction isn't an improvement.

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

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence 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 and have therefore reverted your edit.

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.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding this public footpath.

If you're trying to improve the mapping of public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/bucks/-/

No problem. Access tagging on private land can be a bit tricky, as it might be destination, permissive, customers, or private depending on signage and usage.

Unless they're gated, service roads used to reach different business on an industrial estate are probably ownership=private + access=destination. Setting access=private implies that explicit permission is required.

Customers of and deliveries to Access Self Storage and Howdens should be able to use routing software to reach those premises.

Is this a new prohibition and if so, is there a link to an OSM-compatible source?

I realise that some of the Bing street side imagery is quite old, but I haven't been able to find any TSRGD diagram 951 (Riding of pedal cycles prohibited) signs at junctions along this section.

I see that The A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Development Consent Order 2024 (SI 2024 No. 60) implements a "prohibition of pedestrians, riding of pedal cycles, ridden or accompanied horses, horse drawn vehicles, agricultural motor vehicles and any motor cycle with an engine capacity of under 50cc." (This can probably be tagged with motorroad=yes rather than adding all the individual restrictions.)

I can't find anything similar for the A120 to Capel St Mary section, but I realise that I might not be looking in the right place.

If some of them are wildly inaccurate representations of the interior of the building, my inclination would be to delete those outright.

We do tag footpaths and corridors through railway stations and shopping malls, often as highway=corridor or highway=footway + indoor=yes. I realise that in those cases, they're more useful to routers as they are usually places which you can go through rather than to.

Using indoor=footway as a replacement for highway=* seems somewhat unsatisfactory. Not only is it undocumented and likely to be ignored by data consumers, but the simple indoor tagging scheme is based on area routing and indoor=footway might be expected to be a polygon rather than a line.
osm.wiki/Guidelines_for_pedestrian_navigation#Inside_buildings

Maybe it is worth keeping some of the land side footways/corridors between the pedestrian and public transport entrances, connecting with the lifts and escalators? These seem to me like fairly sane and useful endpoints for pedestrian navigation.

How does replacing highway=footway ways with the undocumented indoor=footway tag work with routing software?

Effectively deleting these objects "to reduce map clutter" looks a lot like tagging for the renderer.

You appear to have tagged a section of the link between the A38 and Ermington 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?

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=50.384058%7E-3.924331&lvl=20.0&mo=om.1&pi=-4.2&style=x&dir=56.8

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!

If it looks like a desire line path, there's the informal=yes tag you could add.

informal=yes

Thanks. I could see the road layout had changed from the aerial imagery, but didn't have time to remodel it when I fixed the weight limit tagging.