Please stop tagging mapping for the renderer. Reverted in 159430998

(Review requested)

Looks fine to me.

The proposed road layout is in OS Open USRN, so if you wanted you could even add the ones where construction hasn't yet started as proposed:highway=residential + ref:GB:usrn=*

Fictitious dual carriageways partially deleted by @yasslay in changeset/159316865

Hi, just a quick reminder that pedestrian-only crossings on public roads in the UK are not marked with dashes. If you see dashes next to a crossing of a side road, these are give way markings and are entirely separate from the crossing. Please feel free to add the highway=give_way node separately.

For example,
This is an unmarked crossing
node/11655924683/history
the dashes were already mapped as a highway=give_way node
node/12059557027

Fictitious separate bus stop highway way/1335597072 deleted. Please do not map for the renderer by adding separate highways where no physical separation exists.

If you wish to add a bus bay, you can do it by splitting the parent highway and adding a bus_bay tag.
bus_bay=*

Please stop mapping for the renderer. Deleting your fictitious carriageway splits at T-junctions is getting very tedious.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. There obviously isn't an enormous building here, but what were you trying to do?

You might find https://learnosm.org/ useful to get you started.

The building has already been deleted by another user in changeset/159324469

I'm fairly sure that Guildhall House hasn't suddenly ceased to be a building. Reverted.

Wide hatched areas are not adequate separation for a dual carriageway, which requires physical separation by a central reservation. This is the case both for OSM mapping and in law.

Even if this were really a dual carriageway, leaving the original way as a 2 lane road and adding a parallel road, neither of which are one way, would be seriously incorrect mapping.

Mapping for the renderer by adding non-existent separation and geometries is detrimental to OSM data consumers. Routing in this part of North Kent is becoming increasingly compromised, to the point that I would have to fall back to Google Maps.

Please ensure that you have read and understood the following before making further edits to major roads:
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Rochester Road is not a dual carriageway where there is no physical separation of the lanes by a central reservation.

In any case, what you have created here is not a dual carriageway, but two parallel roads with two way traffic.

(Review requested)

That wasn't the problem, but it's now fixed.

(Review requested)

Adding a fictitious vertical separation to get rid of a warning generated by the iD editor is not a good idea.

The iD editor makes a lot of suggestions, some of which are ill-advised, but they are only suggestions. If you do not know how to resolve an issue, even after reading the documentation, please leave a fixme tag on the affected objects and/or add a note to the map.

The actual reason for iD generating this warning is that you incorrectly added building=yes to the enclosing polygon for the school in changeset #159150764. If this really were the case, iD would expect to find different layers, or a tunnel=building_passage.

I have fixed both issues.

This is not a dual carriageway, either in terms of OpenStreetMap's mapping conventions or law - there is no physical separation of the lanes by a central reservation.

The OSM wiki for central reservations is here:
osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

The legal definition in Schedule 6 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which sets national speed limits for different classes of vehicle uses the following definition:
“dual-carriageway road” means a road part of which consists of a central reservation to separate a carriageway to be used by vehicles proceeding in one direction from a carriageway to be used by vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/schedule/6/paragraph/2

(Review requested)

No, not really. You can read the documentation for the layer key at layer=*

(Review requested)

No, unfortunately turning the entire length of the driveway into a tunnel=building_passage is neither helpful nor coherent. Highways are often split into segments because their physical properties differ along their length. In this case, a passage through a building with a 4.5m surveyed clearance only applies where the road goes through the building.

tunnel=building_passage

I have reverted your changeset, so there's nothing you need to do here.

(Review requested)

That looks fine to me. Thanks for spotting and correcting it.

Thank you!

Please also refer to discussion here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/uk-quarterly-project-2024-q4-pedestrian-crossings/119792

Please don't degrade the tagging of crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked just because Rapid tells you to. Where both the crossing node and way are tagged, Rapid is rather stupidly giving automatic precedence to the tags on the way, rather than suggesting that you check which best represents the situation. In London, the node rather than the way is more likely to be accurately and completely tagged.

You can use crossing:markings=dots to convey this information without removing information about the type of crossing.

The point of this project is to improve pedestrian routing and navigation, so hiding information about the type of crossing from routers is a little unhelpful.

Thanks!