Hi eteb3,

I also recently cycled this way and meant to check the tagging here, so thanks for the question!

The path from North Street under the railway has a CYCLISTS DISMOUNT and a 951 no cycling sign, so IMO osm.org/way/308865423 should be tagged with bicycle=dismount to match osm.org/way/231497671 and osm.org/way/514226246

If the no cycling sign wasn't there then the "cyclists dismount" sign would be advisory, I guess the intention was to prevent cyclists from clattering their heads on the low underpass (or more cynically, to prevent them from blaming the council if they did have an off).

So it's a cycleway, until it isn't. Clear as mud, no? Either way I agree with your view.

Hi again FT111,

The bollards that you have added aren't rising, because they aren't automatic. osm.wiki/Key:bollard

It doesn't seem appropriate to add wheelchair=yes to osm.org/way/185862716, it's a rough stony path, often muddy in the winter, quite undesirable for wheelchair users I would imagine!

And the tagging for osm.org/way/249455270 was previously correct for a combined cyleway and footway, which this is. You have removed important information. osm.wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway

Please tell me you're not blindly accepting suggestions from Rapid without thinking whether they make sense?

Hi FT111,
Why did you change the surface of osm.org/way/608153375 to a less specific value? This is removing information.

There's no need to add details to the old Currys and Office Outlet building as they have been demolished. I'll revert this change.

Hi ljones56,

Unless something has changed, Carfax has a No Entry sign for southbound traffic (except cycles): https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=131534852351315&focus=photo&lat=51.062524961300284&lng=-0.3281082310751344&z=16.852768485179972&x=0.47516744226960833&y=0.5942209067282249&zoom=2.5686695278969953

And I believe East Street also has a No Entry sign going east from Market Square. Are you sure these aren't one way?

Which routing software does this out of interest? Since it ignores the footway tag and two sets of steps (with step counts) when routing bicycles, I want to make sure I avoid using it in the future.

Hi M4rkle,

I couldn't see any indication or signs showing that pedestrians are intended to use the track (not footpath) changed here. What was your intention when adding foot=designated?

All the best,
Matt

See osm.org/changeset/148858813 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/6

No response, so I've reverted in osm.org/changeset/156906069

Hi Captinmuffin, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for your edits in Southwater. The buildings in this changeset are a little wonky compared to the satellite view, you can make them square by selecting the building, right click, then click the square icon (or use the shortcut Q).
All the best,
Matt

Hi Jarv,
9 months late, but thanks for doing this. It was on my to do list for ages but I could never get enough motivation to start.
All the best,
Matt

I agree Jarv, Kilnwood Lane falls short of being an unclassified highway. This changeset should be reverted.

@Laura21! if you need help reverting this change then let me know.

All the best,
Matt

I checked way 662637905 this afternoon. It's a private track/driveway, so unclassified is absolutely not correct.
All the best,
Matt

Hi Graham, the Aldi building is there, there's no need for the layer tags. If you do a full refresh of your browser's cache (Ctrl+F5/Shift+F5/Ctrl+Shift+R) then you should see it.

Hi mygrove, you asked for a review. What are you trying to achieve with the layer tag here?

The Aldi building osm.org/way/1311800070 looks OK, but you should change building=yes to building=construction (and I suggest then adding construction=supermarket ). This is much preferred to using '(under construction)' in the name - see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

All the best, Matt

Yeah, it's not changed. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/151823387

I'm 99% sure that the Bing Street side image hasn't materially changed and I can see no reason why it would have done so. The BUSES ONLY paint on the road is also on the Bing aerial images. I can check tomorrow to make certain.

Hi, you requested a review for this change. It looks good to me, well spotted!
All the best,
Matt

Changes made in osm.org/changeset/150661818

I'll try to check the A264 east of Rusper Road too.

I think this whole section and the Rusper Road roundabout need a proper review, maxpeeds are all over the place - some holdovers from construction, some that I suspect are just plain wrong. I'll see what I can do over the next week.