Indeed; hence foot=yes on all of these, except yes, I missed out Clarence Parade. I've put that in now, so pedestrian and bicycle routing should all be correct.

Agree vehicle=no would do the job too, except possibly for the question of horses. (vehicle=no is functionally equivalent to access=no,foot=yes,horse=yes)

Can you legally ride a horse through a no-entry sign? Generally bicycles and horses are treated similarly in road law, so I'd expect not, but curiosity piqued now, much Googling ahead...

And a survey is definitely needed to figure out what's happened to adjoining roads - we've now got several one-ways into or out of effective dead ends, which can't be right :-)

Oh, to add: I've not been past the area since the restrictions came into effect, so obviously an on-the-ground survey trumps all.

I'd suggest if it's signed as no-entry-except, or blue something-only signs it should be access=no plus exceptions; if it's signed no-motor-vehicles-except, then motor_vehicle=no plus exceptions.

Agree it's a temporary experiment and isn't a blanket closure, but the restriction does seem to be you-can't-go-down-this-road-unless-you're-one-of-these, so to my mind, that's access=no overridden by exceptions (bicycle=yes, psv=yes etc)

A good mental test is a horse+cart. That's not a motor vehicle; would it be allowed?

Hi

Just noticed you've swapped Talybont North D & E over - pretty sure they were correct before.

See Mapillary: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4Q63cNfqswGuXZ4ulssJxw&focus=photo

and the University's own map: https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/204694/Talyont-North-and-Gate-Site-Map.pdf

I'll correct your correction.

Hi

I realise this changeset is three years old, but I've just spotted the comment "on definitive map".

We generally can't source information from councils' maps, as these are usually based on copyrighted OS maps.

Some OS data is ok to use - anything more than 50 years old, OS OpenData Streetview etc, but generally not rights-of-way maps.

As I say, it's three years ago, so I'm guessing you know this, but thought I'd mention it just in case...

Cheers,

Paul.

I've put male=yes back on the toilets, as I've verified this building contains both ladies and gents loos.

Ok, genuinely intrigued. "Dave"?

:-)

Hi

Welcome to OpenStreetMap - thanks for your edits!

Just a couple of queries - you've changed Wildings into another Prezzo, so we have two next to each other. I think Wildings is still there, so I'll edit it and change half that building back into Wildings and join the two Prezzo bits together. If that's not right, shout!

Also - the "gender problems"? It was labelled as male and female toilets, and you've removed male=yes. Are there no gents loos there any more?

Cheers,

Paul ("southglos")

Hi

Thanks for these additions.

Just a quick suggestion - if it's a farm road, then perhaps highway=service or highway=track might be better?

Plus, if it's signposted as a public footpath, then designation=public_footpath is a good thing to add. See designation=* for other values that might be useful too.

Happy mapping!

Paul.

Hi
Which boundary do you think might need checking - can't see anything obvious?
I've also removed accidental addr:street tags from the corners nodes of some of the houses.

Thanks for adding all those addresses. All appreciated!

Except that from what I remember, that gate is usually padlocked, with keys given out to members. So, certainly for everything except bikes and pedestrians, I'd call it private.
How about access=private; foot=destination; bicycle=destination?

Hi
Looks like Station Road accidentally got renamed "w".
I've put the name back for you.

These are clearly footpaths rather than residential roads; I've re-tagged.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thanks for adding these footpaths - I've made a couple of little fixes for you. You drew the lines for the paths on the map, but without tags we don't know what the lines are - so I've added highway=footpath to each, and you should now see them appear on the map.

Secondly, the nodes at one end of each path were very close to, but not actually joining, the nodes on the roads, meaning routers and journey planners wouldn't be able to make use of these paths, so I've connected them up for you. Can be fiddly at first!

Your edits are much appreciated - keep them coming! Looks like there might be a link from Talboy's Walk to the footpath you've added - if so, there's another one for you to add :-)

Also, if any of these paths are signed as public footpaths, you can add designation=public_footpath too, so we know the legal status of the path. If there's no sign, though, don't add this.

Have a good rummage through the wiki - lots of useful stuff there to get you started. If you have any questions, need any help, or just want to say hi, feel free to send me a message via my user page (@southglos)

Cheers, welcome, and happy mapping!

Paul ("southglos")

It's a straight No Entry (with exceptions), rather than a no motor vehicles sign, so I think a simple access=no (with exceptions) captures it better.

You can still walk down it - so I added foot=yes (although I missed the tiny section at the eastern end, which I'll fix now)

Hi

Thanks for you additions to the map, but can I just check you're aware that the aerial imagery is not always correctly aligned? For example, you've moved the Black Horse so it matches the Bing imagery, but the Bing imagery is offset by a few metres here, so the pub is now less accurately positioned than it was before.

Improvements to building positions and outlines are always welcome, but watch out for offsets and distortions in the aerial imagery.

Cheers,

Paul (southglos)

Nice one - welcome aboard!

Paul ("southglos")

Indeed it is - see https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.550483983058115&lng=-2.472425317394027&z=17&pKey=n4a4Uxy_jYEW8WZ2Pfcd8A&focus=photo

But it's not my edit - this was added in changeset/7701777

Thanks for spotting it - I'll fix it.

Go with whatever you think describes it best; my main concern was that it was still tagged as primary_link when it clearly isn't any more.