There seem to be some serious errors with disconnected ways. I don't know whether
they were disconnected earlier, but routing
is now failing. I have fixed a couple of cases, but this whole area needs checking

We are going around in circles here. It is precisely because I want an accurate correct database, that I made the provocative comment.

I am very well aware of the distinction between the database and myriad of renderers.

I only disagree a little with @SomeoneElse in that newbies first interaction with OSM is going to be the standard rendering on the main page, and that should not omit properly tagged major features impacting on roads like the bridges in this case.

The decison not to render abandoned railways was a little odd from a UK perspective, but reasonable. But for the renderer to fail to extract the bridges from those ways is a incorrect shortcut IMHO. Andy's renderer presumably does it properly.

Well, I know this is the party line. But it doesn't seem to apply on ordinary roads, for example. And if it is to supercede the bridge tag, then why can it not be applied to ways? Trying to micro map every bridge depends on having very high quality gps or perhaps imagery.

I have a pretty good gps unit, but I would need many traces and a lot of averaging to get a reasonable outline of a typical bridge. That is also a burden on mappers who in most case just have a single gps trace across a bridge. And in many cases won't even have access to the bridge sides.

I will have to live with this, I suppose, but the rendering it is just plain broken as of now.

Andy, if you look at the last paragraph of

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030819.html

you will see that I was trying to advocate OSM to local councillors who could not be expected to do other than look at the "standard map", at least initially.

To anyone who knows the area, the omission of these significant features is ridiculous. A bridge is a bridge is a bridge
regardless of its original purpose. These bridges have been mapped for years, and I think were once rendered before a decision to ignore anything associated with abandoned railways was taken.

I know that was an easy option for the renderer, but it was just plain wrong. The bridge_outline is useful in in its own right, of course, but here is is just used a kludge.

This rather provocative comment was my protest against being *forced* to use a man_made bridge outline when I have already mapped this bridge properly.

This is what I regard as a major bug in standard rendering for abandoned railways. A bridge is still a bridge and should be rendered as such, irrespective of whether it was originally built to carry what is now an abandoned railway.

This problem has been brought up on the tagging list many times in the last few years, but all attempts to get the standard renders to do the right thing have failed.

The "official" way to render these bridges is to "invent" a bridge outline which I regard (in such cases) as tagging for the renderer.

As my source tags say, I know this bridge well, I have many gps traces around it, and several of my own photographs.

I cannot take gps traces on the bridge itself since it is fenced off, and anyway the gps quality is not great because of heavy tree cover, but I have made a reasonable estimate of the width and position from all my ground surveys, photographs and gps.

This edit was prompted after my discussions on the tagging list. See
this thread: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030788.html
and also
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030812.html
and particularly my post here
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030819.html where I am complaining that I am being "forced" to invent by the tagging scheme.

See especially
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030843.html
where Martin Koppenhoefer repeats that this use of man_made=bridge is the right solution.

There is a photograph linked in to
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030847.html
which shows this bridge from a few years ago.

This nonsense needs reverting immediately.

I have only just noticed that The Hurlers are are marked barrier=wall and landuse=meadow.
Both are quite wrong. See http://www.readingthehurlers.co.uk/ for current investigations.

The Hurlers have never been a wall except perhaps in prehistory and the landuse is something like "moor" or "moorland", although I don't see the point of this tag here.

I know this area well and will delete or correct this when I am next around the stones with my gps. It seems worth while mapping the individual stones with gps waypoints.

You have missed the cricket pitches which I know to exist from when I am passing the Sports Ground. There are also mini-soccer pitches according to the Town Council Website. I suppose that I might do a gps survey of the pitches one day if it happens to cross my mind when I am free.

I have just noticed areas near Minions which are now marked a "heath". I have local knowledge and I do not think any of these areas generally fit the description of heath.

Looks like a typo in "Rutherford fo(r)lds" ?

Footway rather than path. Source is not Bing or Mapbox. It was gps. Surveyed a long time ago, I think before the fish pass was built. Needs checking. It was always a rather informal crossing and probably impossible when water high, so possible flood_prone tag might be sensible. Really needs resurvey, but when weather is better...