Reverted, please re-read osm.org/user_blocks/3451

Reverted, please re-read osm.org/user_blocks/3451

What you could consider doing here is moving the text to a description tag.

As it is tagged as natural=wood, there are other tags which you could use, so for Scots Pines you might use:
leaf_type=needleleaved + leaf_cycle=evergreen + species="Pinus sylvestris"

This would ignore and be incorrect for the larches, but you could consider mentioning them in the description tag. If you can reasonably approximate their positions, you could even map them as individual natural=tree nodes with similar additional tags.

There is more information in the wiki at
natural=wood

Hi,

The OSM wiki page for the name tag includes this:
"The names should be restricted to the name of the item in question only and should not include additional information not contained in the official name such as categories, types, descriptions, addresses, refs, or notes."
name=*

Because it is tagged as highway=cycleway, the OSM Carto (default) and OpenCycleMap tiles render it as a blue dashed line, rather than the red for highway=footway.

If it were mapped as highway=footway + bicycle=yes, it wouldn't be rendered differently, but routing tools would still see it as a cycle route.

There are a couple of other tags which can be very helpful for cycle routing, surface and lit.
surface=*
lit=*

The name has already been removed by another user, who saw the note I made using Street Complete.
changeset/90306454

I hope that's of some help. Thanks for helping to update Hampstead Heath!

NO problem, and apologies for my rather abrasive tone.

I was plotting a route using Komoot (based on OSM data) and found myself having to create and drag more waypoints than usual to coerce the route onto the expected route, so checked the tagging of the OSM objects. Komoot can sometimes be a bit slow to update, so it's not the best tool for checking routing after editing. You can right click on a point on the map on the OSM website and use "Directions from Here", which will give you options to check foot, bicycle and car using either OSRM or GraphHopper. They don't update anywhere near as quickly as map tiles, but it's certainly quicker than Komoot or Strava.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings about whether a shared unsegregated way is tagged as highway=cycleway or highway=cycleway, as long as routing still works. Using highway=cycleway + segregated=no saves tagging access as it implies bicycle=yes + foot=yes (although in QEOP both of these should probably be explicitly tagged anyway, using permissive as they aren't actually rights of way).

However, cycleway doesn't imply anything about pedestrians not having priority, as the general understanding in the UK is that pedestrians have right of way on shared infra anyway. The Highway Code is a bit vague on it as there's no legislation which would allow it to use MUST.

Rule 62 currently includes this wording:
"Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people,
and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly implying pedestrian priority:
"Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you
are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious.
Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary."
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code

And that spurious argument gives you the right to break cycle routing through QEOP by leaving paths with no implied or explicit access?

Access reinstated in changeset/90351366, reported to DWG.

Is "Cycle Path" really the name of way/19061510 or just a redundant description from the CoL map?

Do you have the URL of the map and confirmation that it has an OSM-compatible license?

Is "Cluster of Scots Pines" really the name of way/224482283 or just a description from CoL map?

Do you have the URL of the map and confirmation that it has an OSM-compatible license?

Thanks!

Many thanks for doing this. I had meant to update the relevant roads on 2020-07-31 when The City of Westminster (20 mph Speed Limit) (No. 1) Traffic Order 2020 came into force.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3603477

You have mapped this as landuse=military, however I am reasonably sure that the Environment Agency is not part of the MoD. You could tag the perimeter fence/wall as barrier=* together with landuse=industrial.

This looks a little like tagging for the renderer, see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Hi Mike,

453 appears to be CRT's bridge reference, so I've moved it to bridge:ref. S115 appears to be a Lea Valley Regional Park ref (presumably for the bridge structure), which I have left in the ref tag.

It's very unlikely to be a PROW ref, as this is a recently reopened permissive path which was well maintained, but fenced off until late spring this year, for no apparent reason. London Legacy Development Corporation don't really do transparency, so whether it is officially open even now is anyone's guess.

Footbridge updated in
changeset/88842488

Waterden Road bridge(s) also changed from ref->bridge:ref in
changeset/88842618

Waterden Road, not Carpenters Road.

Thanks! I'm still perplexed as to how I managed to select nodes so far off-screen from where I was editing. I should probably restart JOSM and reload a more localised area of the map more often.

PLease accept my apologies for this. It's very odd, I wasn't trying to edit anything around Startford town centre and I have no idea quite how I managed to do it. I think the best thing for me to do here would be for me to fully revert 88181456, 88094856 and 88094856 to ensure that your 3D edits are restored to their original condition, then I'll try to restore my QEOP edits from a saved .osm file.

It's another one of Tommyf5's dubious "suburbs". I fear there will be quite a lot to clean up, again.

You have removed the footway=sidewalk tag, despite the fact that these footways clearly are sidewalks. Being a sidewalk does not imply anything about access, so your changeset comment is irrelevant, but it does confirm that the bicycle=yes tag you used in changeset #86996451 was incorrect.

Please read the wiki before changing tags.
footway=sidewalk

Reverted in changeset/87221329

Wikipedia and wikidata tags should refer to the actual OSM object, not to the type of object. Generic wiki* tags will be removed/reverted.

Please don't delete features which other users have mapped, tag them with service=driveway + access=private (or access=customers) instead, which will prevent routers from sending the public along those routes.
access=*

Closure ETO coming into force 2020-06-11, also Gore Road/Lauriston Road and Ufton Road/Downham Road.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3572683