Hi and welcome to OSM, I'm another Preston-based mapper. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, want to discuss something to do with local mapping etc.
Re: this edit, the name tag is really used for the proper name of an object (if it has one). The information that this is a BP petrol station is best conveyed by adding the tags amenity=fuel and brand=BP
Kind regards,
Adam

Hi Peter,
Gosh you were oon the ball with mapping the opening of this link road!
The section of Lune St alongside the corn exchange up to the path to Friargate is part of the National Cycle Network. The oneway restriction appears to make it unusable by cyclists travelling north-south. Did you notice whether there is an exemption to the oneway restriction for cycles or alternatively a cycleway alongside the new link road? Not that it is entirely beyond imagination that LCC would neglect to consider cycle routing when building a new road link...
Kind regards,
Adam

Sorry, I meant Anglezarke to Brinscall, not Brindle.
Kind regards,
Adam

The access tags like bicycle= just indicate legal access, additional tags such as surface etc. indicate the characteristics of the path. A road cycling routing engine worth its salt should not route road bikes down unsurfaced tracks just because bicycles are allowed. We can't be expected to leave bicycle tags off all off- road routes - to the detriment of all off road cyclists who want to use our data - just to cater for a proportion of road cyclists with poorly coded routing software.
Assuming we're talking about the same path, ie. the one alongside 'the Goit' from Anglezarke to Brindle, I'm confident it's part of a designated "West Pennine Bridleway" foot/cycle/horse route the council has developed. It seems the locals don't approve!

Hi Tom, certainly agree that I wouldn't call the path alongside The Goit a cycleway. Paths with detailed mtb:scale tags still need the basic bicycle=yes access tag or map users and most routers will think cycling is not allowed. The only exceptions are cycleways and bridleways which are taken to imply bicycle access by default.
Thanks for all you're doing to improve the map in the West Pennine Moors area. I'm sure I'll be less reliant on my OS map next time I'm over that way :)
Adam

Hi Mike
No need to check; it is definitely a vehicular restriction not a pedestrian one. I've changed the tag. Good luck to any pedestrians brave enough to walk through the middle of the road junction!
Kind regards,
Adam

Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I've ridden the better section as part of NCN Route 6.
I think you're entirely right to tag a towpath which is unsuitable for most cycles as a footway rather than cycleway. But without any further tags footway does imply "no cycling allowed" which tells data users that (for example) someone on a mountain bike is not allowed to use the route. If cycling is allowed, adding the tag bicycle=yes conveys this information; whilst adding appropriate surface etc. tags lets general bicycle routing programs know that it's not suitable for general cycling.

Can it be cycled on a mountain bike with knobbly tyres? Changing a cycleway to a footway implies no cycling is allowed. There are lots of towpaths in England where cycling is allowed but the surface is too poor for road or touring tyres. These tend to be tagged highway=footway, bicycle=yes, surface=unpaved (there's also a smoothness tag osm.wiki/Key:smoothness which can be used).

Hi manny,
Acceptable sources: Your own local knowledge and anything you survey on the ground + any of the background layers available in the osm editors. Any other maps found online are likely to be copyright and unuseable in OSM.

Bus routes are mapped as 'relations' which effectively list of all the different road sections making up the route. Rather than delete the whole relation (ie. the whole bus route) you wanted to delete the incorrect road sections from the relation (and add the correct new sections of the route). I appreciate that this is far from obvious. Relations aren't the easiest starting point for a new mapper. I've corrected the bus route so it now goes along Pottery Lane and Southgate.
Kind regards,
Adam

Okay, sorry. That's an unsual one. I've put that back how it was. I assume the bus route deletion was unintentional? We can't use Google maps as a source by the way.
All the best,
Adam

Hi Manny,
Welcome to OSM. It's great to have a new mapper. Unfortunately, as well as your useful additions, you accidentally deleted a bus route relation and turned part of the A49 into a path. I've changed these back, so no harm done. If you need any help with anything please feel free to ask.
Adam

Great stuff, thanks :)

Thanks for the reply. Are you saying that the council haven't yet signed the route or allocated road numbers? If so, highway=tertiary would be appropriate until it is signed with road numbers. We are not allowed to copy information from copyrighted sources (such as council maps) unless we have explicit permission, so we do rely on the signs on the ground/local knowledge.

If/when these sections are signed as the A5034 and B5569 they do need to be tagged as primary and secondary respectively. For consistency, in the UK we always use the official road number/signage for classified roads. If it's a B-road it's always 'highway=secondary' in OSM, even if it's a busy dual carriageway. If it's a white-signed A-road it's 'highway=primary', If it's a green signed A-road it's 'highway=trunk' even if it's a fairly quiet road in the Scottish Highlands.
Kind regards,
Adam

Hi Tom,
The old A556 is tagged as the A5034 at teh North end and B5569. If these road numbers are correct, then they should be tagged as primary (A5034) and secondary (B5569) highways, not tertiary highways. See osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#UK_roads
Kind regards,
Adam

Hi Mark,
I assume you didn't mean to delete the whole of National Cycle Network Route 55 relation?
Adam

Sorry, here's the link to the mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
All messages can be read by clicking the Talk GB Archives link at the top of the page

Hi Pete,

I recognise your name from the CTC forum and your wonderful farcility of the month feature (many thanks for the years of entertainment :) ).

Anyway, I see you've changed the Fishergate scheme roads back to 'living streets'. I originally changed these back to unclassified highways because another contributor and I thought highway=living_street was reserved for residential areas.

I have started a thread on the Talk-GB mailing list to seek the opinions of the wider UK community about how best to tag 'shared space'. If you don't want to join the mailing list I can forward any comments you make in this changeset discussion.

Best wishes

Adam

Thanks, and you're welcome. Unfortunately there is inconsistency in how these tags are used between countries. It is common in some places (particularly Germany) to use 'footway' for urban paths and 'path' for rural ones and that's probably some of the views in the Wiki and the ID descriptions arise. If data consumers really want to distinguish urban and rural paths they should be a ble to do so without a specific tag. In reality, the surface tag osm.wiki/Key:surface is a more useful means of conveying the character of a path.
Kind regards,
Adam

Ah, okay. So you were nearly there, just wanted the buildings tagging as building=industrial rather than landuse=industrial. I've changed the tags now and the buildings should show up on the map properly soon
Cheers,
Adam

No problem. I see the buildings on the aerial images. Are they both used by Nutree Life?