If you're adding separate sidewalks, please could you also update the sidewalk tagging on the parent street from (e.g.) sidewalk=both -> sidewalk:both=separate ?

Thanks.

It depends on the size of the car park and the inclinations of the individual mapper.

If a car park serving a block of flats or commercial building is clearly visible on the aerial imagery, my inclination would be to map it and tag access appropriately.

Most people wouldn't usually map private parking in a paved over front garden.

If there's a gate, you can add a node on the driveway and tag with barrier=gate + access=private + locked=*
barrier=gate

The only valid reason to delete trails is that they don't exist. At present, your reason is no better than "because I say so", which is inadequate.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Deleted in line with whose "policy"?

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

The OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer suggests that it belongs to Ashlar Court, so I have undeleted it and tagged it as access=private + private=residents

If the car park is shared with East Finchley Baptist Church, it and the access roads would need be tagged with access=customers

Thanks. We've got far too many decorative sidewalks in London. At least people adding these don't bother to add sidewalk:$side=separate either.

If the reopened paths are permissive bridleways, as the tagging suggests, they might be better tagged as:

highway=bridleway
horse=permissive
bicycle=permissive
foot=permissive

If they're used by NT's estate vehicles, you could add motor_vehicle=private.

The access=yes tag isn't necessary and with the current tagging, would actually mean that horse-drawn vehicles have a legal right to use these paths (obviously it's unlikely that anyone would try this).

If you use highway=bridleway, highway=cycleway, or highway=footway instead of highway=path, these render as green, blue and red dotted lines respectively in the default OSM-Carto tiles.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding these restrictions.

As residents can easily obtain permits for visitors, could I suggest tagging the filters with something like:

access=private
private=residents
motor_vehicle=permit
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
traffic_intervention=modal_filter

(The current tagging prohibits pedestrians and cyclists)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've changed the POI type from shop=supermarket to craft=scaffolder.

osm.wiki/Tag%3Acraft%3Dscaffolder

Please do add some commentary!

While INSPIRE IDs do strictly speaking apply to the whole extent of the property, the same could be said to of the UPRN and even the postal address.

Where there is only one addressable building within an INSPIRE polygon (a single freehold property) and only a single UPRN, then I feel that in those cases the building can stand as a proxy for the whole property.

I'm not committed to including INSPIRE IDs, but if there isn't strong opposition I'd be inclined to include them as the link between INSPIRE ID, UPRN and postal address is something for which HM Land Registry charges a £20k/year subscription.

I saw you mentioned it on another changeset and meant to download it. Thanks for the reminder - I've downloaded it and will give it a go shortly.

Slightly related to this, I'm drafting a proposal to import postcodes from ONSUD, UPRNs and INSPIRE IDs.
osm.wiki/Proposed_import_of_UK_postcodes,_UPRNs_and_INSPIRE_IDs_(England_%26_Wales)

The centroid for postcode NN7 4AS in the Postcode Centroids overlay in iD places this on Nene Way, Kislington (add:suburb - non-dependent locality), Northampton (addr:city - it's the post town). It can't be the postcode for properties on both Willow View and Bugbrooke Road.

I'm not sure that lanes=0 is appropriate here, as it's at best ambiguous. The road is already tagged with lane_markings=no

lanes=*#No_lane_markings

Do you have permission from the architect to use this information in OpenStreetMap under a compatible licence?

osm.wiki/Copyright

I suspect you'll find a few more of those in that general area, by the same user. They don't seem to reply to changeset comments, but they do appear to respond by changing how they map objects.

If both segments of the road have the same tags, merging them is generally fine and makes life easier for others.

Some highways are split because segments are members of relations like bus and cycle routes, or restrictions like prohibited turns. Hopefully editing software like iD will complain if a merge might break a relation.

You asked for a review of this changeset. The merge of the highway segments looks fine to me. Thanks for adding the parking information as well.

Broken in what way? What did you do to attempt to fix it, before summarily deleting a relation which has happily existed for over 12 years?

Please revert your changeset.

Please don't tag for he renderer.

Some objects in OpenStreetMap are not rendered in the standard OSM Carto tiles. There may be other layers which render them, or you may have to query them using Overpass Turbo.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I have reverted this changeset.

Hi,

Thanks for all the work you've been doing on this project.

However if the pedestrian crossing is a signalised crossing, please could you revert back from crossing=marked to crossing=traffic_signals, as making it more generic is a loss of information?

The markings at pelican and puffin crossings are dots rather than dashes, as prescribed by Schedule 14 TSRGD 2016, so crossing:markings=dots should be used rather than crossing:markings=dashes

It's arguably redundant, but it wouldn't hurt to add crossing:signals=yes as well, as iD based editing software has a habit of trashing (sorry, "upgrading") the value of crossing=*

Adding wheelchair=no alone would have achieved this.

If the surface is grass, as it appears to be, adding surface=grass + tracktype=grade5 would be useful.

It's obviously not informal=yes, as that implies a desire line path, not a planned path in a landscaped garden.

For access tagging the defaults of highway=footway + foot=customers were correct. Setting foot=yes implies a public right of way, which is clearly not the case within the grounds of RHS Wisley.

I cannot see any steps on the aerial imagery and a SAC scale of mountain_hiking (terrain is steep in places and may pose fall hazards) seems improbable.

Please only tag what is actually there and resist the temptation to add fiction in order to influence the behaviour of rendering or routing software.
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer