Thanks!

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

Although adding bicycle=no etc. to footpaths tagged as highway=footway doesn't do any harm, it also doesn't really have any effect on routing software which uses OSM data. The implied access restrictions for a footway already exclude all other transport modes. If people are cycling on these paths, they probably haven't been sent that way as a result of access tagging in OSM.

There are times when it can be worth adding bicycle=no, particularly when this is made explicit by a sign. In this case you can also add bicycle:signed=yes (this is what the StreetComplete app does).

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Looking at the tags you've added in this changeset, I think there may be a couple of problems.

1) access=no + motor_vehicle=permit means that the road may not be used by *any* means of transport other than motor vehicles with a permit which "is ordinarily granted". This seems unlikely. You've added permit=residents, but if this really were the case the only access tags you'd need would be:
motor_vehicle=private + private=residents
I can't find any traffic orders which restrict access to Thorney Street. I'll be running nearby tomorrow and will check what signs (if any) are in place at Thorney Street's junctions with Millbank and Horseferry Road.

2) The tagging which you've used for parking restrictions was deprecated at the end of 2022. Please could you adapt this to the current scheme described at
osm.wiki/Street_parking

Thanks for resolving my note so quickly!

I've replaced the maxweight:hgv tag with maxweightrating:hgv which corresponds to that sign. If it had been a weak bridge sign, it would have been either maxweightrating (modern sign) or maxweight (pre-1994 sign).

changeset/171997927

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for resolving the note and updating the map.

The only suggestion I would make is that you replace the current access=no tag (no access for any transport mode) with foot=private and possibly private=residents (only pedestrians with explicit permission may use these paths). The general "access" restriction here can be replaced with "foot" because the footpaths are already mapped as highway=footway, which excludes other transport modes.

NB The edit you've made is fine as it is and won't cause any problems for data consumers, so there's no need for you to change anything. Hopefully my explanation of the tagging is of some use.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

While it might seem like a good idea to simply delete paths on private property (or in this case removing the highway=path tag), it's almost always better to use correct access tagging. The reasons for this are explained in detail at the links below.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

The highway=path tag has already been restored by another user in changeset/171893487

(Review requested)

The outline of the path looks fine, as it's from your own GPX file.

However you probably don't need to add an access=no tag here. If horses and bicycles are prohibited and it's pedestrian only, you could additionally tag it with horse=no and bicycle=no. Alternatively, you could replace highway=path with highway=footway and dispense with the access tags entirely. (NB This is just my opinion, what you have mapped isn't wrong and won't cause any problems for data consumers and you don't need to change anything.)

You might find the following useful
highway=path
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Sidewalk tagging restored in changeset/171492409

Hi,

With some of the crossings over cycle tracks parallel to the grove, you've removed some traffic_calming=table tags and changed some crossings from unmarked to marked.

The crossings which have a table or hump are marked with a solid white triangle on their approach(es) (TSRGD diagram 1062, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11#tgp2-tbl2-tbd1-tr33-tc2 (. This should be visible in aerial and street side imagery.

With the unmarked crossings, although the cycle track around the crossings has a blue surface (and should be tagged with surface=asphalt + surface:colour=blue), this extends beyond the crossing. The crossing itself is not marked, so visually impaired users have to rely on they yellow dimpled tactile paving on both sides.

Please bear on mind that existing mapping, while incomplete and with some errors, was done by local mappers and largely from in person surveys.

Is there any particular reason why you've changed the crossing nodes at the intersection of High Street North / Heigham Road / Burges Road from crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked?

The fact that they were determined to be button operated and have sound signals by two other users conducting surveys with StreetComplete strongly suggest that they're still the pelican crossings I first mapped in 2020. It's also impossible in the UK to have a button operated crossing with sound signals which is an unsignalised marked crossing.

The sidewalk tagging on Ron Leighton Way was correct before you edited it. Now, if you are to be believed, there's a sidewalk on the inside of the roundabout (funny, I've actually been there and would have noticed). Also, the separately mapped sidewalk on the E side of Ron Leighton Way apparently isn't associated with the road any more, but it's suddenly acquired one on the W side where none exists.

Please revert your edit and be less careless in future. Pedestrian mapping in OSM is actually used by people who live here and that ALWAYS takes priority over a corporate box-ticking exercise.

... and fully reverted in changeset/171455900

That's no what your edit did and it was certainly not made in accordance with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Reverted in changeset/171455073

Re-tagged with sensible values in changeset/171454730

As these edits were clearly not made in line with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths and @NTTrailsLSE hasn't replied, I'll escalate this to DWG and National Trust.

Reverted in changeset/171454522

Please read:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
and
osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Your edit deleted the highway=path tag from these paths, effectively removing them from OpenStreetMap for rendering and routing purposes. You were certainly not editing OSM in line with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Reverted in changeset/171454270

Reverted in changeset/171454189

Updated in changeset/171453947

You need to familiarise yourself with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Are you sure that deleting desire line paths which are clearly visible in aerial imagery is the best strategy, rather than using a lifecycle prefix like disused:* or razed:* and a note=* (at least until the imagery catches up) is the best strategy here? Simply deleting them risks them being re-added by other mappers as highway=path ways.

I also note that you've deleted a section of the Ridgeway National Trail with this edit.