So there's an interesting quirk on this 1890 map - https://maps.nls.uk/view/229946781 with "Back Cable Street" appearing behind buildings on "Parliament Street" on what is now the car park for the Parliament Street Retail Park.

That aside, all the other evidence I have is that Parliament Street runs as far as the North Road junction on both sides.

The key point is this bus lane order from 2019 - https://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s155424/Appendix%20A.pdf
- While it has maps that we can't use, it does have a textual description which presumably we can use which talks about a bus lane starting on Parliament Street 105 metres south west of the Centreline of Bulk Road, to the left turn filter at its junction with Greyhound Bridge Road. That to me is enough evidence that osm.org/way/96055314 is not Cable Street and is in fact Parliament Street.

Updated in osm.org/changeset/170353883

Updated the crossings in osm.org/changeset/170352860
Going to do a little more research on the street naming - hopefully I can find a usable source

I guess there's also the unmarked crossing of Greyhound Bridge Road to the NW of the lights. Is that fundamentally different to the crossing across NE-bound Parliament Street? The only difference is that there are 2 phases when a pedestrian can cross here without conflict

Hello, I've just been re-reading the wiki and yes I think you might be right, although there is some extra nuance here.

Mapillary image here -
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.05268786118398&lng=-2.7961026701102583&z=18.002058557365068&pKey=169029318452074&focus=photo

Interestingly the crossing is only marked on the exit from Parliament Street, and not the entrance (i.e. only across the bus lane). I think this may be because it is only this half that has a phase where the pedestrians can cross (to the island) while protected by lights.

There are (from memory) 3 phases at these lights.
1. Cable Street -> Parliament Street both directions, ahead-only, + pedestrian crossing Bulk Road
2. Cable Street -> Parliament Street (NE direction only) + Bulk Road -> Parliament Street left turn only.
3. Bulk Road -> all directions

All of these phases permit traffic to enter Parliament Street and conflict with pedestrians crossing - probably the reason for no markings on the NE-bound lane, and no signals.

Does that change how we tag it? Example 5 on the wiki certainly fits for the bus-lane. But the general traffic lane in the opposite direction is possibly just a standard unmarked crossing like you would get at any uncontrolled junction. However is that any different to example 5? Presumably there traffic can still turn into the junction and conflict with pedestrians - just have to give them priority?

As an aside, I think the labelling of Cable Street vs Parliament street is wrong - I think the area NE of the junction is all Parliament Street (you can see the sign on the mapillary image on the left hand wall under the green arrow), on the other side we can't use them as a source but MARIO and Google Maps both agree on a name while OSM has one side Cable Street and the other side Parliament Street!

My suggestion would be to tag as per your suggestion for the bus-lane side, but the other side I'm less sure. I don't object to apply your suggestions to both sides (possibly with different crossing:markings=*).

How does that sound?

Note - these positions may not be 100% accurate, but more of an aid to future mappers for the street numbering. Interpolation will be needed for the intermediate houses.

Hello!

No. I meant to check on it when I got home actually as I thought I'd already numbered it the other day.

I've tagged it as nohousenumber=yes and kept addr:flats - hopefully that keeps Street Complete happy!

Thanks for the reminder!

Thanks :)
Needs an in-person survey to get some extra detail, but slowly making the map better!

Hello! Thanks for letting me know!

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/167020706

Thanks for updating the tagging!

Nope! Thanks for flagging.
I was clearly not zoomed in enough in Street Complete and thought it was referring to the bin in the entrance foyer!
I've reverted in osm.org/changeset/164265403

I've split these into individual hoops in osm.org/changeset/160790569. I can't find the location of the 7th from my photos though.

Hey, I was the one who added this.
I'm not sure the best way to map this as it isn't really a formal court, just a load of hoops on the outside of the asphalt area.
Not a great image, but here is a photo I took while surveying last year https://photos.app.goo.gl/YwZyNBNNgzE6sGCBA

:)
A lot of trees causing annoying shadows on the imagery though. I need to get out to do more surveys!

I think it's fine. I was debating between roof:shape=many and roof:shape=gabled. I went for gabled in the end, but can be split into building parts later to be more accurate. I think I just messed up setting the tags in JOSM!

Hi :)
Thanks. I removed it because I saw no evidence of cycling being permitted on Mapillary at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.0693473446&lng=-2.8013698404&z=11.904412871082933&pKey=2604328053198219&focus=photo&x=0.48816258946850666&y=0.5252273468605346&zoom=0 but missed the connection at the top end.
I think I've fixed it by adding a link from the end of the cycle section to the old Lancaster Road in changeset 156142683
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156139365

I suspect that the issue is that some pedestrian footways are not connected to the rest of the network.
If you take a look for example at the junction of North Drive and County Avenue, the only route for a pedestrian is around the back of a recycling/ cycle shed. Presumably though the pedestrians can cross straight across the entrance of County Avenue.
Presumably something like osm.wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dunmarked and the associated tags would need to be added across the entrance of this junction, and others

Looks good, thanks :)

Hey, it's a detached house that has been converted into three flats (there's a few that have been converted to flats on that road, but it was raining, so didn't make a note of most!).

Good call, thank you. I've updated it as suggested

I have just re-checked my photographs of the area from when I surveyed in October.

I personally think it /ought/ to be landuse as it is man-made and not naturally occurring, and that is echoed by some discussions on the wiki and the rejected proposal of natural=shrubbery - osm.wiki/w/index.php?oldid=2130624

I would say that the wiki description for natural=shrubbery fits what we have here, although it has never been accepted as a proposal.

It was probably a mistake on my part to tag as landuse=shrubbery when natural=shrubbery is better documented, but as there is no consensus on the correct tagging yet I would be inclined to leave it for now.