Hi again

I didn't mean to imply you were doing anything wrong, I've deleted at least one decorative sidewalk myself. There have been discussions in the talk-gb mailing list (are you on there?) about when it's appropriate to map them separately and when they just add clutter and no useful information. There's someone in Acton creating lots of decorative sidewalks and not joining them to roads too, which is really annoying to me but doesn't seem to be affecting routing at least. I had a look at that MapWithAI task but I don't like needlessly adding sidewalks when there's a reasonable assumption that there are pavements on both sides of the road.
Regarding unmarked crossings, I mapped the status of every street corner drop kerb and tactile paving within a couple of blocks of my home and being able to report on it in Overpass Turbo is really useful.
I've also tried using the pic4review site to create a mission for others to use Mapillary imagery to upgrade the tagging of other unmarked crossings (https://pic4review.pavie.info/#/mission/2738). Not sure about the data quality that comes out of that yet - you have to really check the mapillary image location to identify where in the picture (if at all) the referenced crossing is.
Is the forum more active than the mailing list?

Hi Robert,
Is there a place I can look up what the waymap-project is?
I have been creating "unmarked crossings" in my local area in order to record the presence (or absence) of tactile paving and drop kerbs/flush crossings. I like the idea of OSM being able to help create pedestrian routes for people who depend on that infra.

Why did you delete the Blenheim Centre in this changeset?

- Steven

Are you sure about this one? Signage and a row of bollards are visible in recent Mapillary imagery:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.48957330000002&lng=-0.2868645999999444&z=18.49032465646991&pKey=2000001437030905&focus=photo

Thanks. I know it's controversial to delete someone else's work but I've left it for months and they've shown no sign of adding more.
There are specific circumstances where adding sidewalks as separate ways adds useful information, but this isn't one of them.

Phew! I probably should re-read that page about UK addressing anyway because the Haverfield Estate here has lots of housing where I'm not sure if they are flats or townhouses or maisonettes, whether they should have a housename or a streetname, a parentstreet, unit numbers or housenumbers. Is there a simple flowchart somewhere that gets you to a consistent answer after answering a few questions?
This block is an example - I don't know how the apartments/houses are numbered inside, nor exactly how they are divided up by floor.
osm.org/way/23918393

H Robert, thanks for getting in touch rather than just changing things. Happy to change them if I've tagged them wrongly, but I'm not sure I have. I think the addr:* tags are for postal addresses and "London" is the postal town only for addresses with London postcodes - "W", "NW", "SW" etc. TW8 isn't a London postcode so it requires a different post town?
I've checked one example in this changeset in the Royal Mail "find a postcode" checker and it confirms this address:
1 Kingsleigh Close
BRENTFORD
TW8 0PA
I've used "London" for addresses just over the border in Ealing because they do have a postcode relative to London.
Let me know if you think this is still wrong.

Regarding the highway=cycleway, highway=footway thing, I think in OSM in the UK cycleways do not forbid pedestrians, so highway=cycleway and segregated=no for a shared use path is very common, though I take your point that some might interpret that as a bike path where pedestrians are allowed rather than the other way round. highway=footway definitely prohibits cycling if not accompanied by a bicycle=yes/permissive tag.
Have you seen any council documents that establish a position one way or the other?

Sorry, one last point, I did raise the issue on the talk-gb mailing list - here's the discussion if you're interested:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-January/026002.html

Though I notice with that combination, none of the routers choose a cycle route through the parks, so I guess that's moot.

I had a similar issue in Ealing - the bylaws forbid cycling in parks, yet more recent literature from the council encourages it. I spoke to a park ranger who said that they don't enforce rules against cycling in parks unless combined with anti social behaviour. I felt highway=footpath, bicycle=permissive, segregated=no was the best representation of reality where there was no signage explicitly forbidding cycling.
osm.org/way/23135636#map=16/51.5084/-0.3094&layers=YN

Hi, I think the source for this change may be out of date - this area is currently a building site and I don't think these ways exist any more, with under construction buildings occupying much of the space. Do you have access to recent satellite imagery?
Mapillary imagery from a year ago here - it hasn't changed much since then:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1472344493255262

Do you have a copy of the terms and conditions or a photo of the Parking terms that you could share?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133949710

I snapped a photo of the sign at the corner of Tewkesbury and Singapore but once I got home realised it says "See signs in car parks for details". Do you have a photo of that? I think you probably have grounds to challenge - for a start private companies can't issue PCNs and secondly you aren't parking, you're loading/unloading. Have you tried challenging it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133949710

That sounds very frustrating and possibly illegal! I'll have another look next time I'm up there. Are you sure the PCN is for accessing the area and not for parking somewhere you aren't allowed to? I don't think the road is private, it's a locally adopted road as far as I know. The council do implement school streets and some no-through-roads but this should always be clearly signposted.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133949710

The presence of cameras has no bearing on legal access at the moment. I checked The Gazette and if the local authority are planning to restrict access, they haven't begun the legal process yet. Please don't make edits that speculate about future changes.

Is it correct to remove the highway=crossing tag from this node?
osm.org/node/10232079492/history
I think it's useful for routing for wheelchair users to know where the designated crossing points are with tactile paving and lowered kerbs. I suppose those elements might be implied by "crossing:island=yes" but that's only meant to be used on something that is highway=crossing anyway?
Here's the Mapillary image for that crossing:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=545306904275425

Here's what the wiki says:
cycleway=separate
Can be used to indicate that a cycle track associated with a highway has been mapped as a separate OSM element (i.e., is tagged with highway=cycleway). Usage is limited, but the meaning is similar to the use of sidewalk=separate, and can potentially be used when simplifying geometries for rendering. It also acts as a hint to avoid duplicating an existing cycleway by adding cycleway=track to a highway. It has the same intended meaning as cycleway=sidepath. Don't confuse with segregated=yes

That is weird, I just tried searching grasshopper for a route from the Pope's Lane/A406 junction to Chiswick Roundabout on the main OpenStreetMap website and it displays correctly. I assume it wouldn't have picked up your change yet?

Sorry, you're right - cycling explicitly forbidden.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=566216304684184