Mr Matthew Liew would do well to read the GMC guidance: https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional

This edit will have been made by a paid spammer on the doctor's behalf. I doubt that the doctor knew that they were paying for the digital equivalent of flyposting over safety-critical signage.

It seems somewhat reckless to advertise in this way without reference to the General Medical Council's guidance on using social media as a medical professional ( https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional )

@pitscheplatsch I've seen four edits like this, two of which overwrote the tags of place=* nodes. I'm inclined to suspect it's some sort of marketer providing a very low-quality advertising/SEO/spam service to private consultants for a fee (for which they should demand a refund). I've let DWG know in case there's more of this.

(Review requested)

Please don't overwrite the tags of existing objects, as destroying information to promote your practice is extremely unhelpful.

I've restored the building's original tags and moved your details to a new POI in changeset/178458722

Thanks for deleting the descriptive name=* tag and adding a note.

For vacant business premises, you can use a lifecycle prefix, which in this case would mean adding something like disused:shop=yes or disused:amenity=restaurant together with check_date=*

These should be picked up by apps like StreetComplete and will prompt users to check whether it is still vacant.

Overwriting the place=town node for Bushey was more than a little unhelpful to data consumers.

I've moved the clinic node to Spire Bushey Hospital, changed the speciality to the value documented in the wiki and updated tags on the hospital.

This is the second edit like this we have seen, suggesting that a markerter may be doing this as an undiscussed automated/organised edit with the following characteristics:
* overwriting the place=town node where the clinic is located (potentially s. 3 CMA 1990)
* failing to include the name of the hospital in addr:housename=*
* adding healthcare=hospital + emergency=yes rather than healthcare=clinic, which are properties of the hospital (and it's extremely irresponsible to add emergency=yes at a private hospital which doesn't have an A&E department)
* using a form of healthcare:speciality=* which isn't in the wiki

(Mr Acharya - if you paid for this, get your money back!)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your practice.

Unfortunately, your edit overwrote the tags of the existing place=suburb node for Blackheath, which would be somewhat unhelpful to data consumers.

I have moved the tags to a new POI, node/13546012727 - you may wish to tweak the location within the hospital buildings.

I have also updated the address etc., tags of Blackheath Hospital, way/591570712

See changeset/178455734

If you are local and want to add a little more information to help routing software, you could also add tracktype=* and surface=*

If this track is for access to Dagwood Farm (only) and it isn't a public right of way, access=destination or access=private might also apply.

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. That looks fine to me, thanks for improving OSM.

I'll see if anything has changed after Land Registry update INSPIRE (first Sunday of the month).

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. And thanks for spotting this.

For gated roads, it's usually best to add a barrier=gate point to the road at its position on the road. You can then split the road (right-click, scissors icon) and add access=private to the part of the road behind the gate.

If the general access condition is private, you don't need to add access conditions for other transport modes (motor vehicle, horse, bicycle, foot) unless access is more permissive. An example of this would be a public footpath along an otherwise private road, where you would add foot=designated

Updated in changeset/178352760

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding information to the hotel.

The hotel had already been mapped with tags on the building ( way/1360663960 ), so I've merged the tags from the POI which you added.

Thanks @VLD157 !

Thanks!

I'd better add some houses to go with them :-)

As I was there on Sunday morning and it was fresh in my memory, I've made a few little tweaks and added two crossings of Beckenham Hill Road (one with accessibility features, one without).

Adding the driveways would be very helpful, thanks.

Next time I'm in Beckenham Place Park for a swim, I'll survey any extra details of more recently sidewalks and crossings with StreetComplete.

Thanks.

I've added two crossings of Beckenham Hill Road:
* an accessible crossing (lowered kerbs, tactile paving) SW of the junction with Blacklands Road/Brangbourne Road
* an island crossing between Chestnut Close and Bromley Road (normal kerb, no tactile paving, crossing way tagged with wheelchair=no )

changeset/178042183

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this business to the map.

I've added the tag shop=car_repair so that data consumers know what sort of feature this is. It might be worth looking at service:vehicle:=** and adding any extra tags which apply.

I've also disconnected it from the centre line of Cromer Road and added building outlines. You could drag it into the middle of no. 4 if you wanted to make the position more accurate.

changeset/178009915

Thanks!

Adding #CrosswalksMaybeMissing does not excuse adding decorative sidewalks which are at best useless for pedestrian routing. Please either map them properly or not at all. As I actually use OSM-based pedrstrian routing in London for planning runs and walks, contributions like this are unhelpful and unwanted.