The "correct" one is private. Unfortunately, real resident parking schemes in this area do not fit the description. Permits are readily available.

Please could you check the talk page for street parking as well?

Unlikely in the near future, as other area:highway polygons don't get rendered in OSM Carto. Unfortunately, that results in the areas around some linear ways getting tagged for the renderer as e.g. highway=footway + area=yes, then some routers try to follow the perimeter.

Hi,

I think the wikidata and wikipedia tags for Three Mils might be better suited to something like a place=* node in the middle of the area, rather than replacing the wikidata entry for a single listed building within that area.

Thanks!

Changed to service in changeset/130264945

Feel free to change the highway type back to service. I can't find out whether or not it is shared ownership or maintainable at public expense from any OSM-compatible source, so will happily follow OS Local's map style here.

You removed the USRN from Sword Close ( way/1026019436 ) and changed it to service, which I have restored. I have no other issue with your edit and had no intention of making any other changes.

I will only apply a USRN as far as it is verifiable, which may involve splitting a way, since I can only add that identifier where it is clearly verifiable. Access to the National Street Gazetteer or OS Master Map would probably answer that, but neither of those datasets is likely to be released under OGLv3. If you would rather both ends of a T remained as residential, I have no problem with that. For a simple cul-de-sac ending in a T, we still have two ways in OSM however they are mapped.

I didn't suggest that it was arbitrary, but that different mappers choose differently. I would be more than happy to see and abide by anything which finds its way into the UK mapping guidelines.

The streets in this area which spent the last decade as highway=living_street, on the other hand, really did appear to have been classified as such rather arbitrarily.

Just to clarify, I only had an issue with the (inadvertent) deletion of a USRN, the rest was context for how I'd used the data.

I produce OpenUSRN extracts by exporting them from QGIS as GeoJSON files which I can then load into JOSM. It's a simplified geometry, so it has to be used alongside aerial imagery and the Land Registry boundaries.

From the data I've incorporated into OSM, generally the T or Y at the end of a cul-de-sac (or other short spurs) doesn't have a USRN. In some cases, that may be due to the simplification of the geometry by OS, but so far it seems to have held where the arms of the Y or T are relatively long. Where roads go from residential > service > driveway is probably down to the personal taste of individual mappers than it should be.

Thanks!

I note you've deleted a few ref:GB:usrn tags, however those tags were only added to the same extents of roads as in OS Open USRN. I mapped the sections with USRNs as highway=residential and those without as highway=service as there is likely to be a difference in whether the local highway authority or the developer is responsible.

Thanks! The local ones all seem to have been added by the same mapper back in 2012. The wiki at the time probably wasn't as clear about what a highway=living_street should be and few local authorities have created any.

No problem. If I'd been paying attention in the first place, there wouldn't have been anything for you to spot :-)

BTW, you're doing a fantastic job of adding buildings in Newham, thanks!

I realised it was close to 10,000 changesets last weeks and made sure that #10000 was one which I could explain to non-mapping friends when I post about it on social media later, rather than a batch of UPRNs or USRNs :-)

Omitted OS Open Names from sources.

Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons

Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons

Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons

Apologies. I see you've replaced it by a larger landuse=grass polygon covering both sides of the cycle track.

Why delete the landuse=grass polygon? I can understand deleting the increasingly useless landcover=grass tag, but surely it's still grass there.

way/768135678

Is there a source for this list?