I would say this is a router issue. I am not even sure if it uses sidewalk= tags at all, it seems to fallback to any roads that don't explicitly ban pedestrians. At the same time it indeed over-prioritises footways.

The solution is to keep mapping and keep improving routers. Not to dumb down data to mask router deficiencies. Fixes to the routers may happen overnight, map data - not so much.

The main advantage of Google is algorithms they use for merging disjoint pieces of information (maps, search, timetables etc), not the quality of their map data. And yes, we could learn from them.

Milhouse,

My issue with this discussion is calling such changes "incorrect" or "bad mapping" when objectively they are not. I do not see why amalash would need to acknowledge that. Incomplete data are a norm - just look at this map, there are partially mapped fences or individual trees - someone found them useful or simply had fun mapping them.

I don't have an opinion on the sidewalk= tag but having data duplicated at at different levels of detail should be fine, maybe even useful.

BTW, I see at least one reason _not_ to use sidewalk= tags (but I would never discourage them!). When the pavement is discontinuous it chops the road way into multiple segments. This can become unwieldy when combined with other similar tags (speed limits, surface, lane count, dropped kerbs, bus lines).

Cebderby, I understand your point but it is still _your_ preference and opinion. Others will disagree, as it is common in all discussions about the level of detail. Please refrain from accusing others of bad mapping only because you disagree with their choices.

Hi Steven,

While I understand your concern about maintainability or excessive details, adding pavements (as well as any other details) is perfectly fine. Mappers may have different ideas on what details are important. There's also no requirement for edits to be complete or even correct, as long as errors are not added intentionally.

Hopefully fixed in osm.org/changeset/158716146. I'll wait for imagery to catch up before any further changes in this area.

I'd like to fix my error, or at least find the place, so I don't repeat it. From your activity in the area I guess is it is about the Manningtree Park development, possibly the entrance to it (the junction with Long Road) but I am not sure if that is what you meant. Reverting the whole Manningtree Park produces 13 conflicts, so it is still a bit too broad.

Hi, apologies my mistake.

I will try to revert the changeset if I can (it is quite large and a bit old by now). Can you point me to the affected junction? It may be easier to do a partial revert.

I couldn't find any deletions in the area. However, it is surprisingly difficult to analyse OSM history, especially when searching for deleted objects, so my search is not conclusive.

It is quite likely buildings simply haven't been created yet. That wouldn't be out of ordinary. Towns that are fully mapped usually have active contributors living nearby.

I'll check it more closely later when I get back to my computer but I don't see any deleted ways/buildings in the change log. Do you know what buildings have disappeared? Perhaps remember one?

In hindsight, leaving construction areas for too long may be obtrusive to new residents who may want an up to date and readable map. I will try shrinking them sooner.