I made a mistake in previous comment. I should have stated I would have no issue with the tag being changed to vehicle=no

But now thinking about it that would allow horse access, which I assume would be prohibited

The carriageway has a prohibition limiting access to only buses. Any pedal cycle moving past the signs (either end of road) on the carriageway would be committing an offence. Correctly stating that cycle tracks are not "mandatory", does not change the prohibition affecting the carriageway.

Pedestrian access along the carriageway is not prohibited by the sign, but I followed tagging guidance from the wiki here (arguably incorrectly). It is inconsistent with how I've tagged other limited access carriageways and I would have no issue with access tagging being changed to motor_vehicle=no.

Maybe this is something we should have discussed on the talk_UK mailing list? I'm surprised by your opinions regarding cycle access and would like to hear other views.

Hi, I've assumed the edit was made with with presumption that the shared route cycleway had not been mapped as a separate way. The "shared route" cycle track has been mapped in OSM as seperate way. Below is a link to an image I captured in August 2021

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZUyDhG2iJyZootBZ7

I've changed the access to access=no , changeset 113282900

Not sure sure of what you mean "by definition", what definition are you referring to? Is this something in the OSM wiki, or mailing lists?

Last time I was there the "cycle track" and adjacent roads are separate ways.

Has there been a change to highways layout? Or has there been a change to signs/ what signs did you see there?

Hi, you've made a significant change to access but have not provided a source. Just want to confirm you meant the changes you made.

Thanks, should have come back to this by now, but had to visit family so I wont remap it until the weekend. Generally don't map farmland use, but when I do I follow the style of mapping you suggest. Thanks for the advice.

This massive multipolygon was used to map most open land between Woodbury Common and the River Otter as farmland. Had to make some edits that impacted on it, but found it frustratingly difficult due to size. Since most of land is pasture (from some reason called meadow in OSM) and the multipolygon was arguably unworkably large, I've deleted it. I'll come back on and add several smaller areas, but using a different landuse tag.

Hi, You have not provided a source for this changeset. Can you let me know the source?

Hi, There are a few problems with this changeset. You've made changes which have a major impact without a changeset explanation or a source. Many of the change in this changeset can not be made without some sort of "on ground" data. So your changeset, is missing a source for the changes, and the changeset comment should state or help with understanding why the changes were made.

You removed the one-way from "Iron Bridge" way, without source or explanation. You changed the maxweight tag without a source.What was your source for these two changes? It should be stated or at least implied in the changeset.

I was confident you'd made a mistake with your edit, but with no source and only a brief changeset comment, you reduced the ability to spot and fix the mistake.

Please see the following guide osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments.

You've also made major changes around the bus station area without source or explanation.

I've fixed the Iron Bridge edit, and will check and fix the edits around the Bus Station later.

I'd prefer, cycleway:left=track, so could you please delete the separate cycleway.

Regarding my side road test. I feel Track in practice acts as a protected cycle lane within the carriageway (road) and is treated as engaging with sides roads as part of the main road. If you cycling forward and a side road is to your left, it remains always to your left as track, so you can simply cycle past the side road.

In practice, in the UK, nearly all "pavement" or road side cycle ways, function separate from the road. If your cycling forward and there is the previously described side road coming up, you have to treat the side road as if your crossing it, rather than passing it. You're generally expected to give way. In the situations where the cycleway has priority, the cycleways general kink in a bit with "give way" markings either side of cycleway on the side road (Mapillary example - https://bit.ly/3kc4uTr ) A separate cycleway, therefore generally works better in the UK because cycle ways normally have a seperate route at junctions

This a subject I had to give a lot of thought to last summer. Last summer a mapper in Exeter converted nearly every road side cycleway to track. Arguing it improved the database and citing the 2019 SotM talk "Is the OSM data model creaking?" I'd argued that track should almost never be used, because routing assumed you were part of the main road, while in practice nearly every single Exeter cycleway functions separate from the road, especially at junctions. The debate appeared to end after the mapper found this relevant question. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/73255/cyclewaytrack-versus-separately-mapping

I still had to spend a few weeks restoring all of the Exeter's cycleways. So it feels bizarre to end up supporting a track. But the support only applies to this way for specific reasons.

I had already added this "cycleway". It was me who tweeted the video that you used as a source. Replied to your tweet. Also separately added longer stretch of road to Mapillary.

So the cycleway is present on the main road as cycleway:left=track & cycleway:left:oneway=no

Aware of the debate between the use of on road track vs seperate cycleway, and generally strongly prefer mapping separate. But in this case the cycleway is in the road, does not cross through side roads, and no restrictions to turn and reach destinations on opposite side of road. Still the issue of tags specific for the the cycle lane

I've deleted this separate cycleway in favour of a cycleway=track. I've sent you OSM message explaining my thoughts (Basically, this is rare example of cycleway=track, because the way it treats side roads, and access to main carriageway)

Surveyed and changed to attempt to fix long standing issues over access & recent changes. I've uploaded images to Mappilary (more to add). Previous approach was manage access as a function of lanes. I've taken approach to manage access as a function of direction. Based on Wiki eg osm.wiki/Key:oneway:psv

osm.wiki/Tag:psv%3Ddesignated

In this edit I've blundered by allowing taxi both ways along western section of sidwell st (using psv tag). I fix later today (6th June)

Hi xmascreations, Looks like you've just made a few changes, which may be your first edits to OpensStreetMap. If so welcome to OSM.

You've moved the locations of building along Gandy Street from approximately correct locations to a wrong locations. I assume you made the changes to align with provided Bing imagery. The buildings were approximately in the correct place, and the Bing imagery was wrong. It's common to align (move) the imagery before tracing over it using sources such as OSMUK Cadastral or OS Streetview. Ease of doing it depends on software used. You used iD. If you open the Background layers menu, there is an overlay called OSMUK Cadastral. This has building outlines you can trace over or use to align Bing imagery (using alignment tool at bottom of menu).

This should not stop you ever adding data, but if your mapping in heavily mapped area such as Exeter you should start with the presumption that the major buildings are properly aligned and satellite imagery is misaligned.

This has not caused caused any notable problems and their is no rush to move the buildings back.

Hi TwitchyA2, Looks like you've just made a few changes, which may be your first edits to OpensStreetMap. If so welcome to OSM.

This changeset and the previous few are missing a "changeset comment' needed so other users get quick a understanding of what you did. See the following osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments.

You should also provide a source for your changes. There should be boxes to fill in with this info just before you submit the changeset.

There is a specific to this changeset. You've moved the location of the building from a correct location to a wrong location. I assume you moved it to align with provided Bing imagery. The building was in the correct place, and the Bing imagery was wrong. It's common to align (move) the imagery before tracing over it using sources such as OSMuk Cadastral or OS Streetview. Ease of doing it depends on software used. This should not stop you ever adding data, but if your mapping in heavily mapped area such as Exeter you should start with the presumption that the major buildings are properly aligned and satellite imagery is misaligned.

I'll move the building back to the proper location. And thanks for adding info.

Hi, You've traced a couple of patterns made in crops from different years from different imagery. These are were temporary with a years crop growing, and should not be mapped.

Can you make another edit, and delete them? Thanks.

I've made changes to the area to show start of construction and updated note. osm.org/changeset/105419800 Cycle past site regularly so I'll add more detail soon, and keep updated

Hi, had a look at changeset due to review_requested tag. Everything looks good to me. It looks like you fixed the blunder made in changeset 98964266. Now that I'm looking at the area I'm making some trivial changes to alignment using osmUK Cadastral layer.

Changes have been made to road to only allow only bicycle traffic. The local government has stated it has been done due Covid-19, resulting in less Bus & Train travel, leading to more cycling and the need for roads to enable safe cycling