Thanks! Barking & Dagenham tends to get a little neglected.

A lot was added from GPS traces during the initial phase and Mapillary images I took in Oct 2019. Another user added some more recent imagery in Jun 2024, which might be of some use.

I'm not sure what "cordic routing" is, but this section of Elmfield Road is clearly signed as being for bicycles, buses and taxis. Please don't add incorrect data to the map.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.40281%7E0.018695&lvl=20.1&mo=om.1&pi=-7.3&style=x&dir=342.3

No problem. Looking at the history of the service road/driveway, it was added by someone who worked for Amazon Logistics. Presumably they felt it was useful, but probably should have tagged it as a driveway in the first place.

That would imply 24/7 access for all motor vehicles without exception, which isn't the case. The signage isn't great, as it's mostly via banned turn signs at junctions.

* Star Hill, not Star Lane!

"Making an absolute dog's breakfast of the junction by mapping for the renderer and treating lanes as if they were physically separated carriageways"

Please don't remove features which actually exist, just tag them correctly. Only features which do not exist should be deleted.

In this case, all you needed to do was add service=driveway to the highway=service which was already present.

Reinstated in changeset/164654950

Please at least try to use access:* and contact:* tags correctly.

If I remember, I'll walk that way on the way back from the gym on Thursday .

Thanks - worth adding name:etymology:wikidata=Q7966315 here as well?

(added in wrong place, own error - reverted)

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thank you for adding the path and improving OpenStreetMap.

The horse=no access tag isn't strictly necessary on a highway=footway, but it's harmless.

Thanks for replying. There are a lot of mis-taggings for access in OSM, so it's not catastrophic, but hopefully we all want mapping to be as accurate as possible and hope that renderers and routers catch up.

What I know about actually implementing routing services would look lonely on the back of a postage stamp, so take this with a grain of salt ...

Ideally a more specific access tag should override a less specific one. For the case of buses, bus=* should take precedence over psv=*, which should in turn take precedence over motor_vehicle=*, vehicle=* and finally access=*

If you have access to street side imagery of the place you're checking (with an OSM compatible licence), there's a guide to interpreting UK traffic signs on the wiki.
osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hi,

Changing vehicle=no to motor_vehicle=no here may cause problems for other data consumers, as that's not what the signage means.

In this case, the signs visible in Bing's streetside imagery here ( way/3528791 ) are the TSRGD diagram 953 variant "Route for use by buses and pedal cycles only". That translates to OSM access tagging as:
vehicle=no + bus=yes + bicycle=yes

Replacing vehicle=no with motor_vehicle=no implies carriage=yes. OSM-based routing for horse-drawn carriages may be somewhat niche (arguably, so is routing bus journeys after they have taken place), but we should tag to the best of our ability to reflect reality and shouldn't entertain changes which would potentially send more vulnerable road users like drivers of carriages along roads where they are prohibited.

I can see that you're trying to make a positive contribution to OSM and improve the experience of your fellow Busmiles.uk users, but you won't balance those two objectives if you ignore changeset comments.

I think you mean "breaking correct tagging in order to work with a defective router".

The TSRGD diagram 953 sign variant used here means "Route for use by buses and pedal cycles only".
This translates into OSM tagging as:
vehicle=no
bus=yes
bicycle=yes

Please read osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk

Thanks for fixing the mis-tagging of the pedestrian section of King Street as a living street. Some Busmiles users don't really care what they break, so long as the website's facility for snapping journeys to the map makes pretty pictures for them.

Thanks for updating the crossings!

Where features have been removed, but the aerial imagery hasn't caught up yet, it can be worth using lifecycle prefixes on the features instead of deleting them (e.g. change a crossing=traffic_signals node to was:crossing=traffic_signals). That way, armchair mappers working from aerial imagery are much less likely to incorrectly add them again.

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Has the sign at the entrance to the bus station been changed since Bing's street side imagery was last updated?

If it's still "motor vehicles prohibted, except for buses and access" (TSRGD diagram 619), then it's:
motor_vehicle=destination + bus=designated
Those are the only tags required, access=no + bicycle=yes + foot=yes aren't really necessary.

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.44498%7E0.369115&lvl=22.0&mo=om.1&pi=-6.9&style=x&dir=333.5

The bus lane was already mapped with the older bus:lane=left tag on Home Gardens and has now been replaced with lanes=3 + bus:lanes=1 + bus_bay=left. The mapping for the renderer has been removed.

I see. Having bus=yes or bus=designated should override motor_vehicle=no, vehicle=no, or access=no as the most specific mode should take precedence in routing software.

If something is mapped as highway=busway, as is the case here, I think you can safely remove motor_vehicle and vehicle access tags without causing routing issues for other vehicles.

It might be more of a problem around bus stations where the entry signage on a highway=service road is "no entry except buses" or "no vehicles except buses". Access tags are supposed to follow legal restrictions and in both of these cases, vehicle=no + bus=designated is the effect of the signs. Can I assume that this is the Brouter implementation used in Busmiles.uk's snap to route function?