Ha, amazing. It looks like there have been some updates on that source link too that need reflecting in access

Hi, the reason taxi was set to no is that this entire bridge is closed to traffic during renovation: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/wandsworthbridge

Setting to yes indicates the bridge is passable for taxis, when it is not presently reopened yet (as of last I saw)

Hi, the amended speed limits on these roads are incorrect. The local unit for maxspeed is mph and a signed speed limit in mph should not be converted to kph, as the conversion is imprecise (e.g. 30 kph is not equal to 20 mph).

Also, please could you provide useful changeset titles rather than a random combination of d, f and g. The title should at least specify the basic changes made.

Should this not point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charing_Cross_Hospital as the medical school is a subset of the site

Thanks :)

There's some docs on the wiki on how to go about preparing a large import in the future, if the TfL data license is compatible with OSM that is: osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Was this pre-organised and approved as a data import and passed licensing? This has added thousands of data points that are not correctly integrated with the underlying road data and is likely to be reverted in its current state

Actually the old positions were indeed way off and Bing seems to have a very variable offset round here. Ignore me :/

Hi,

The default Bing imagery is misaligned and should not be traced without correcting. You must first calibrate the offset in iD using a known good location source. See https://learnosm.org/en/josm/correcting-imagery-offset/

In the UK, the Cadastral layer (can be enabled in iD) is the best standard for aligning the imagery and shows that the previous location of these buildings was actually closer to correct.

Hi.

In this edit and the previous, you appear to have put a number of street names into addr:housename and also replaced addr:street with the incorrect value. For example, the units in Ram Quarter should not have a housename of 'Barley Walk'.

The tags proposed by the FHRS tool are not all necessarily correct and should be checked before applying them. JOSM gives you the option to amend or disable the tags it proposes.

Ok, a number of these seem to arise from a differing of tagging style for physically vs paint/wand separated cycleways. Whereas you've strictly stuck to only physically separated tracks being permitted to be separate ways, I've allowed paint separated lanes to continue as independent ways where it avoids awkward hard joining of ways or gives an indication that cyclists are not just being dumped in the main lane. As far as I'm aware, both of these are perfecly viable and permitted tagging schemes and I was careful to ensure no loss of cycle routability through the junction (indeed, entering/exiting the lane between the wands on the north eastern side is particularly trecherous, so the open access there is somewhat moot).

To address the particular points:

- See above paragraph. There was still a construction area at that location on Tues that appears to have been removed in the revert, was this gone?

- See top paragraph

- Ditto, with comment about wands

- This comes down to when you allow road ways to be separated to allow clearer indication of routing through complex junctions (and this one is a mess... :/); it's for sure one expanse of tarmac but presently the northbound road route is rather awkward through that section. Again like with cycle lanes, I've allowed adjacent turn lanes to be independent where necessary, whereas you enforce only physically separate.

- Whilst there is no island here yet, there is sufficient separation of the counterflowing lanes that I felt it was clearer on the map to show these independently, rather than merge and fork multiple times since the overall road width is the same as where is it mapped separately further east

- Correct, that shouldn't have been removed

- See three points up

Re speed limits, I would expect 20mph. The roads to the south and west are definitely 20mph as they're Islington roads. The surrounding TfL roads (north and east) are tagged as 20 mph and that's what I'd expect but I have no direct confirmation of that. Given that the whole roundabout itself is TfL owned, I would expect it to follow that it'd be 20.

I'm happy this has improved the mapping here, but a bit of a heads up prior to just reverting it all would have been nice, as is commonly recommended where it's not clear vandalism, that's all :)

Why did you not discuss this first before reverting all of my changes? The changes made were correct as of the status of the roundabout last week

Thanks. I'll leave them named as they are then and perhaps add Jerry's Hill in the location North West of the Tangier Memorial, which seems to be the consensus of where that is.

Hi. I'm really digging up an old change here, but I wonder if you know where you got the names Big/Little Alp in Putney Heath? See osm.org/note/1567146 for some context about trying to figure out the naming round here

Hi, could you group future changes into localised changes rather than having edits from multiple widely dispersed locations in a single save? Otherwise these changes appear to span all of the UK, making review a lot more difficult. Thanks :)

Hi,
I didn't originally set it as apron, but I think it is appropriate. Heliports still use the 'apron' terminology and other heliports appear to use a similar tagging. So I'd suggest the wiki should perhaps say "An apron or ramp is the surfaced part of an airport/heliport where aircraft park"

Hi,

Once again, could you please look at aligning the imagery prior to these edits? Bing has a significant offset over London. You can now use the 'OSMUK Cadastral Parcels' overlay to get an idea of the offset.

Also, a large number of these 'fences' are actually hedges or otherwise.

Google translate to your specified edit locale (ru):

Еще раз, не могли бы вы взглянуть на выравнивание изображений перед этими правками? Bing имеет значительное преимущество перед Лондоном. Теперь вы можете использовать наложение «Кадастровые участки OSMUK», чтобы получить представление о смещении.

Кроме того, большое количество этих «заборов» на самом деле представляют собой живую изгородь или что-то еще.

No worries, it's awesome you're contributing! If my explanation is a bit vague, I'm happy to provide any more help :)

Hey,

The Bing imagery has a significant offset over london, meaning the default alignment of imagery when you open iD is incorrect. You can check against the Cadastral data layer, or use a rough offset of (4.1, -1.7), which can be set at the bottom of the Background pane on the right.

Note that iD forgets the offset when you reload the page, so needs to be reconfigured every time... :/

Thanks :)

Hi,

Many of these traced and tagged as fences are evidently walls, hedges or some nothing at all. A bit of nuance is needed when interpretting land boundary data for another use, since fence boundaries don't necessarily follow the exact land extents. For example, the houses backing northwards onto Penland Wood have a far simpler fenceline than would be suggested by the Cadastral data.

Wow that dataset is incredible, thanks for pointing it out.

Now if only I could convince everyone else to check offsets :/