Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#modified Geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#modified Geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#modified geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#Modified Geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#modified geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#modifiedgeometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#Modified geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please also see
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
and
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Although it would duplicate locked:conditional, would it be worth adding foot=permissive (?) + foot:conditional=no @ (...) for data consumers which are only aware of access tags?

Ne serait-il pas plus avantageux pour « le propriétaire » si vous utilisiez correctement addr:street=* et ajoutiez addr:unit=* ?

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The edit you made, adding the cuisine tag to a cafe, is fine.

However, you need to add a meaningful comment to your changeset. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

No, it's fine, what you did was absolutely correct. Hopefully the county council will update their PRoW info eventually - the current extract is from Dec 2023 ( https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/herts/broxbourne/cheshunt/ )

Thanks.

Where the Erie Rail Trail crosses Ash Street, the crossing ways ( way/1153622962 and way/1153622957 ) are tagged as highway=crossing rather than (e.g.) highway=cycleway + cycleway=crosIng. As highway=crossing is only valid on a node, this breaks routing in Garmin and other OSM-derived applications. I don't know what type of highway or access tags would apply over this crossing, but please could you update accordingly?

This is how OSRM fails to traverse the crossing for pedestrians:
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=41.0415134%2C-73.9182722%3B41.0412039%2C-73.9180442#map=18/41.041313/-73.918526

See highway=crossing
"This tag is only used on nodes. If a crossing is also represented by a way, tag the way with a different highway=* value corresponding to the kind of path that crosses the street, for example highway=footway footway=crossing for a pedestrian crossing."

Has the crossing been formally closed and public right of way (Cheshunt FP 22) diverted?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for spotting the missing access=private tag on the allotment track.

For the foot=no tags added to the A523, I have checked the available Bing Streetside 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 partially reverted your edit in changeset/163794968

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=*

My initial attempt, for micro natural=wood polygons in LB Lewisham with area < 10 m^2 and based on OSM extracts from yesterday is changeset/163786073

I hadn't realised how much that mapper had abused natural=scrub. Unfortunately they've got form for blatant mapping for the renderer and don't reply to changeset comments. If you look at the edit history of area:highway=residential polygons around there, you'll see that a lot of them were initially mis-mapped as highway=service + area=yes because that is rendered in OSM Carto.

See also https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2024/05/river-wogebourne.html

No problem, thanks for the quick reply. That definitely sounds like motor_vehicle=private, so I've updated it in changeset/163777678

It may take a few weeks for changes to propagate to routing software.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You probably didn't intend to delete Norway Drove, which is part of public footpath ER14 ( way/49431750 ). I've undeleted it in changeset/163776528

I notice that it's tagged with motor_vehicle=yes, which implies a legal right for (all) motor vehicles to use the track. This seems unlikely for a public footpath - should it be motor_vehicle=private?

As you map around Grove Park, you'll probably come across a lot of very small natural=wood polygons where one user has mapped the canopies of individual trees. I might have a quick stab at replacing these with natural=tree + diameter_crown=* nodes derived from the centroids of the polygons this afternoon.