Thanks for the edits to OpenStreetMap :-)

Hi Matt. I think you are using the "Name" field for a description rather than a name. It is ok for things to not have a name - in fact most things don't.

Examples where you have a name where one probably doesn't exist:
- sports pitches
- The Bumpy Way (path)
-names on footpaths approaching the school.

Unless these names are visible on a board/sign, they shouldn't be included.

Thanks. I've made some additional changes now that the Bing aerial imagery is updated.

+1 to Richard's comments. Particularly that OSM is iterative and the suggestion to add "source:tracktype=imagery" rather than revert.

No worries. I like what the iD developers are doing but from time to time they get things wrong too. Openstreetmap can be complex even for those working with it every day!

In this case the problem with iD was already spotted (27 days ago) and we're just waiting on the next version of iD to be released to fix it.

In the mean time, keep an eye on what tags iD actually adds when using the fix/upgrade option.

Best regards
Rob

Hi Chris. I had to revert part of this edit as it made the whole of the bus station land area a building. Be careful using those iD automatic fixes as they can result in unexpected changes.

P.S. I walk past on a daily basis. Let me know if you want photos etc.

A couple of thoughts:

First I'm in two minds about whether the one way should be on these roads. It is a temporary restriction lasting only a few more weeks. The risk is this version of the map is loaded into offline tools and not updated for several months (leaving some users with wrong data longer term).

Second: Joyce Pool exit on to Saltisford - I think this is still a left turn down to the roundabout. Worth checking.

Thanks for these edits and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

osmuk.org

Thank you for your contribution to OpenStreetMap. Find out more about the local community and how we can help at https://osmuk.org/

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. We have an active community of contributors who can help if you decide to do more. We also run events locally and across the UK. https://osmuk.org/

Broadly speaking that way looks ok. A couple small bits on the east that you might change, and you would probably draw it differently of the roads were in place first, but as a first pass it seems ok to me. I think we just need to be clear to any future "on the ground mappers" that they can change it as much as they need following a survey.

Reverted by 58503447 - reason: vandalism

If you do want to test in a safe environment then create a new account on the following test website:
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. The map of Kenilworth looks a lot better as a result of your work :-)

Our local group: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/

Thanks for working with the talk-gb group with this and for developing a brand new community validation tool. :-)

I have made this back in to a loop road again as per the wiki guidelines ("preferably a small loop of road"):

If there is a non-traversable island, and the place is meant for turning, then consider using the new (but unproven) highway=turning_loop, or preferably draw a small loop of road.

Thanks for helping to keep OpenStreetMap up to date. I hope you are finding the map useful.

Hi Timothy,

My apologies for the slow response.

You asked me to clarify what I meant by updating the software to understand max height restrictions of nodes.

In the following example there is a barrier mapped as a single node (point) on a road. The routing software understands this and routes the long way round.

My question is therefore "Why do height restrictions have to be moved from nodes on the road to a length of road as Openrouteservice can clearly understand some restrictions mapped on nodes?"

https://openrouteservice.org/directions?n1=52.282232&n2=-1.590657&n3=16&a=52.283893,-1.594627,52.281254,-1.595174&b=0&c=0&k1=en-US&k2=km

Thanks,
Rob

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your edit here does not do what you intend. The bridge information should be added to way that is ON the bridge (not below it). For more see [1].

In this case it is the railway which is on the bridge and this was correctly mapped in OSM. I have therefore gone ahead and reverted this edit.

The max height restriction was also already mapped but only on a single point. I expect you want it mapped on a length of road so that it can be used in your software. As this is an acceptable way of mapping [2] I have made this change for you. Please review the change here so that you can see what I did (the page can be slow to load):

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=52668466

You will see that I have split the road into a very small section that passes under the bridge (this means that vehicles over 4 m height can still access the car park entry road just south of the bridge) and put the height restriction on the small section of road only. I then deleted the height restriction from the node/point as this is now duplicate mapping so no longer needed.

I'd also recommend updating your software so that it can understand max height restrictions as this was originally mapped (i.e. on a node not a length of road).

[1] osm.wiki/Key:bridge
[2] osm.wiki/Key:maxheight

P.s. Thanks for providing a photo - this really helps me to provide you some help.