There are a couple more sites within half a mile of this one that have also only done the demolition part of their permission, so if we do change one we should probably be consistent. And probably many more across the Tendring district where we monitor approved planning applications and use those to know where to re-survey. See e.g. http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/tendring-openstreetmap-notes_97621

The note on this site shows that the original planning application was for Demolition and construction (with later change of plans). That the demolition has been done means the expiry date on the original permission is no longer relevant as the development has begun (even if so far that is just the demolition), and the site last time I was in town had those sort of metal fences you get around building sites. Brownfield might be an option, though I think of that more where there isn't approved plans in place.

I'll revert.

Why? The new building is not yet built.

I think the area:highway tags are used for pretty rendering in some renders, but the highway way for routing (and possibly labels), so you could try adding both if you want.

Hi. Do you remember where you got the Station Lane and Old Station House names from? I've seen suggestions that the address of the house might (now) be Gate House, Rectory Road. Thanks.

So I've removed them. But there is still stuff needs fixing in the area - the footpath definitely didn't involve wading in a river.

Using JOSM to identify the relevant GPS trace I then tracked down a photo, and a duplicate seems likely. As might this one osm.org/node/1602070540/history

Thanks for the reply. I've not cycled that bit, just seen cyclists on it when I've been on the Wivenhoe side. I have been looking at catching the bus to Rowhedge and walking to Wivenhoe on what will be the England Coast Path.

Has the crossing been replaced? Always used to be two with an island in the middle, as here https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3973747309357327

I'm fairly sure the Rowhedge Trail also has permissive cycle access and plays a part in the city council's cycling strategy (or used to).

Any idea about this bridleway, which seems to be inaccessible to horses, only having footpaths either end? osm.org/way/1144835177

The footpath that you added when you deleted the service road that this note relates to osm.org/note/3186298 you've added bicycle=yes, but the first photo mentioned in that note suggests cycling is prohibited. This may have changed since the photo was taken, but thought I'd check with you.

This seems to have lost the detail that the hotel has a separate entrance for when the pub is closed (though admittedly the pub entrance centre front was already missing).

I'd not noticed before, but the bridleway to the west of this changeset has access=yes on it. That should probably be removed as I'm pretty sure this car routing isn't correct. osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=51.93978%2C1.11437%3B51.93985%2C1.11865#map=18/51.94027/1.11651

It can be changed to residential. I'd forgotten to add this bit after a recent survey https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=751505759831890

Sorry to comment on an old changeset, but before I got to Wrabness beach yesterday I walked along osm.org/way/28723405 having expected to encounter some signs saying private, but reached the main road without seeing any. There are some at the main road end saying there isn't access to the treatment works and to use the A120, and using access=private will probably fix that, but I don't think it is private for pedestrians (not that many will want to use it). Not that people will want to use it if the new footpath ever gets built (as part of England coast path one is proposed to west of treatment works, then paralleling railway to meet existing (but not yet mapped in OSM) paths in Copperas Wood to rejoin the Essex Way where it crosses the railway line. I wondered whether I should add a foot=yes permission, or at least foot=permissive?

I'll have to go out and survey to confirm, but I'm wondering if it got moved to here: osm.org/node/10687884073/history

Looks like it was me realigning osm.org/way/65000623 to UK Cadastral that caused the overlap with the other way. I thought I'd checked, but must have missed it.

Ooops. Thanks.