Thanks again.

These are bus lanes, which are mapped using tags on the road. Don't add pretend roads where no physical separation exists between lanes and don't add fictitious guided busways anywhere, ever.

It isn't a bus guideway. Even on real ones, the guided section doesn't extend into bus stattions.

Please don't tag for the renderer. It's a bus rapid transit scheme, not a guided busway.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for spotting and correcting that.

I think the earlier mapper misused highway=bus_guideway because it's rendered on the "default" OSM Carto map style and the correct highway=busway unfortunately is not. This is an example of tagging for the renderer and the other mapper really ought to have known better - see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I've tweaked the tags on the construction section and the access tags on the rest of that part of Fastrack.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The museum has already been added to OSM, but only 2 months ago: node/13256051041

Corrected in changeset/175714422

Although a previous edit changing it to a guided busway was wrong, highway=busway is the correct tagging here. It was probably mis-tagged as a guided busway and keeps getting changed to unclassified or service because those are rendered in the "default" OSM Carto map tiles and busway is not. Before changing it again, please see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

There is a lot of misunderstanding about access tags and signs.

A blue dedicated bus route sign (TSRGD diagram 953) or a no entry sign with exceptions prohibit all vehicles except those expressly permitted. That is represented by vehicle=no . If a motor vehicle (only) prohibition was intended, then a different sign would be used (diagram 619).

There is no UK traffic sign specifically allowing PSVs, so psv=yes is almost always incorrect. It's not quite a synonym for bus=yes and shouldn't be used when the signage specifically refers to buses.

It may not be a *guided* busway, but assuming that the "bus only" road markings clearly visible in aerial imagery at both ends are still current, the access tagging you'd want is:

vehicle=no + bus=designated

The tagging you have used turns it into an unclassified road open to *all* general traffic, which would cause problems for routing software based in OSM if that's not the case.

(Review requested)

Thanks for updating this.

For the private section, it should be highway=service rather than highway=secondary (used for B roads).

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thanks for updating it.

Thanks. I thought it was probably something like that.

There is a small cluster of buildings in this changeset around Ifield Drive with building:levels=w - was this a typo for building:levels=2 ?

For a road, or other object which doesn't have an address in the conventional sense, the postal_code tag which you've already used is more appropriate.

On roads, it's often truncated to just the postcode district (IG3). That's partly because it's what tends to be displayed on street name signs, but also because many roads have properties with different postcodes.

The addr:postcode tag on the road won't do any harm, but it's more useful when added to individual buildings. I realise that this is a new development, so it may be a while before there's suitable aerial imagery from which to trace them.

(Review requested)

Pedestrians are implicitly allowed on highway=cycleway ways in the UK, please see:
highway=cycleway#Foot_access_on_cycleways
and
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

If you wish to emphasise that it's a shared path, you could always add foot=yes (some might argue that it's technically redundant, but it's very common) and segregated=no.

Use of highway=path creates problems, as it requires explicit access tagging to work out which transport modes are actually allowed.

This was correctly tagged, as the track is clearly visible in aerial imagery and is on OS OpenMap Local. Adding access=private was correct (thanks), deleting the other tags, presumably in order to stop it rendering, is not.

Reverted in changeset/175468517

Changing access=private to access=no changes the meaning from "access only with explicit permission" to "no access for any transport mode", which is unlikely to be correct.

You can read the documentation for the access key here:
access=*

You also dragged part of the track onto a power line, which is why the editor warned you about crossing ways and disconnected highways.

Reverted in changeset/175468464

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If you use highway=footway instead of highway=path, you usually don't need to add access tags like bicycle=no or horse=no (unless they're explicitly signed).

There's a list of default access assumptions for highways in the UK on the wiki at
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

If the paths/footways are separately mapped pavements/sidewalks, it's also helpful to add footway=sidewalk, see
sidewalk=*#Separately_mapped_sidewalks

You inadvertently dragged a section of Campion Grange, which is why the editor displayed so many warnings.

Fixed in changeset/175424400

I realise that this edit was made a very long time ago, but would the un-gated and unadopted streets within the Four Oaks Park private estate now be better tagged as ownership=private + access=destination ?

Thanks for your reply. I've restored the pond (only) in changeset/175404206