This should probably be building=church rather than building=yes, I think?

osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dplace_of_worship#Buildings_and_open_areas

Nice one!

See osm.wiki/Key:maxheight#Non-numerical_values. The absence of a maxheight tag means that the maximum height is unknown; the presence of maxheight=default means that the maximum height is not specified, but has been checked to be enough for all normal traffic (i.e. lorries).

I’ll probably do the Lake District passes and valleys next. That’s probably got a bit more impact than doing something like the A5074.

Wow, that’s fantastic! I thought I’d finished the A5074, but obviously I got ahead of myself at the A592 junction and forgot about the rest up to the A591. Thanks for finishing it off!

This includes reworking the junction with Brantfell Road and St. Martin’s Hill to make it a cross-roads, since there seems to be no restriction on coasting down Brantfell Road and onto St. Martin’s Hill in real life.

Nice one.

I don’t think this edit is correct. There is no advantage to splitting the A590 sliproad into two lanes; it makes the junction more complex for no routing benefit, and prevents routing from one sliproad to the other (which, debatably, is possible in real life). The turn:lanes tagging is also now wrong.

I would request that if you’re going to make non-trivial changes to a junction which someone has mapped in detail, you should attach a comprehensive changeset message which justifies the changes. Thanks.

Great, thanks

OK, changed to bus=discouraged tourist_bus=discouraged in changeset #50675680. I’m not sure if I got all the instances of it, since I can’t get overpass to list any access:coach instances. (I’m obviously using it wrongly.)

I was following the example of `access:bicycle=yes` (from that page). I guess the intention of the road sign could be encoded as `bus=discouraged`, `tourist_bus=discouraged`? The sign is probably more targeting the length and wheel base of the vehicles rather than their use as PSVs or multi-person vehicles.

Not really. The tagging is meant to reflect a road sign which says “Not suitable for coaches”. The tagging documentation I was following is osm.wiki/Tag:access%3Ddiscouraged.

Nice one!

Done.

Correct, but surely the abandoned railway should remain mapped? It’s a useful historical bit of information.

Probably best to move discussion about the tagging scheme to the wiki. width can be used irrespective of vehicle type, whereas lanes=1 or lanes=1.5 is ambiguous wrt whether two trucks could pass, for example; or whether cars can pass by slowing down and pulling in to the side a little, or whether one of them needs to reverse to a passing place.

This doesn’t look right. The footpath and rail bridge shouldn’t be on the same layer.

Why did you just delete this entire railway line with no comment?

Shouldn’t the narrow roads be tagged with width=3m (or so) rather than lanes=1?

osm.wiki/Key:lanes#Narrow_roads

Done.