I don't remember this particular case. I normally leave construction areas until the whole site has been completed (mainly to avoid tagging multiple fragments of unfinished sites) but there's no rule to that. Feel free to update it as you like.

Hi IpswichEdits, first of all, apologies, I did not realise it was your preferred mapping style. I blindly assumed these landuses were mapped long time ago. I should have researched the local area more before jumping in. If you prefer the previous convention I am happy to revert my changes.

Regarding alignment - I used OSMUK Cadastral Parcels, which as I understand are supposed to produce a definitive alignment. This indeed resulted in an offset between new landuse boundaries and buildings. As the amount of changes was quite large I opted for the "correct" alignment. If you are OK with this style of landuses, please let me know if you want me to align buildings to cadastral parcels or align landuses to buildings. I did notice the existing data were mapped very precisely indeed, albeit at a different offset.

Regarding conventions - I prefer mapping landuses away from the roads, as tends to match the actual use better (although legal status sometimes differs) and allows more freedom in allocating different landuses types to different plots of land, without all the complexity of multi-polygons etc. In my opinion having landuses connect to roads can be also more difficult to maintain (both roads and landuses accumulate a lot more points than they really need). Also, this is purely philosophical and debatable, I prefer to keep 1D and 2D objects as separate data classes that don't mix.

This is not to convince you this is the right method of mapping landuses (it has its own limitations too), just explain my logic. Having others enjoy mapping is far more important, so if you would like me to revert or clean up my changes in any specific way just let me know.

Hi,

Thank you for your contribution. I think "test zone" was uploaded by mistake, could you please remove it.

Deleted non-existent road in #141679432

Hi eteb3,

I have merged an existing, now deleted PoI (osm.org/node/6415868887) into a building, deleting the history along the way (sorry). The PoI was added in a changeset osm.org/changeset/69371177 and I can see you have already commented on it.

I agree with you this is most likely an error. At very least I would have removed the amenity=place_of_worship tag.

Hi DaveF,

In this and similar changesets I have copied an existing landuse=residential way with a place=* tag
osm.org/way/58821399
into a standalone place=* way (mostly to avoid accidental removal of data).

I do not know where it originates from but since it was bundled with landuse=residential it is unlikely it was based on official data.

Apologies, my mistake. I've got overzealous with cleaning up the area for the new construction and haven't noticed the substation is still there.

What Histon Road geometry changes are you referring to?

Hi,
Let's leave it as is for now. Technically, the bus way is still under construction but the default OSM style (Carto) doesn't currently render highway=construction, construction=bus_guideway.

As this way is not yet open (and it will not be open for a while) it may be better to tag it as highway=construction, construction=bus_guideway.

Comments?

Hi mundlk, I've got a private message from your colleague saying this is a residential road.

My understanding is, this is a guided bus way under construction. Any cars parked there are doing it unofficially and once the bus way is open this will no longer be legally and physically possible.

Houses along the bus way have street names of "Duck Hook Walk" and "Claudius Walk" - they are both footways without car access (by design). In case of Claudius Walk the access vehicle access is from the rear of properties via Roman Close (this is not an isolated case in Northstowe - see Bramley Walk). I'm not sure about Duck Hook Walk, though.

I'd like more locals to confirm the current and planned status of the bus way. Perhaps the plans have changed, in which case I'll be happy to update the map.

Reverted in 102548471

Reverted in 102548471

Thank you and welcome to OSM. Is this road really one way only, and if so, what other roads it is connected to? Also, what is the builder and the name of this residential area?

User_5589, I came here expecting vandalism or at least controversial changes. Instead, what I've seen was a well mapped roundabout adhering to OSM conventions and a previous version that was objectively incorrect, as it introduced ways and crossings where they don't physically exist.

I realise your intention was to map the layout of individual traffic lanes. That's a desirable outcome but, as of now, there is no satisfactory solution to it. You could try adding area:highway or lanes tags. Or even put forward a whole new proposal for broader discussion.

I came here after reading user_5589's post in Talk-GB and I have only verified the changes in osmcha using Bing imagery.

I see robw has made subsequent fixes in changesets #101074201, #101074494 and #101074890. User_5589, are they addressing the issues you have raised?

I can also see this changeset has indeed mainly removed non-existent islands/ways, so calling it destructive is not warranted. For multiple lanes not separated by traffic islands the consensus is to use tagging, not to create multiple highways.

Overall, this roundabout is mapped very well indeed, much better than most I've seen. Thank you both.

Thanks. Reverted in #98147223.

Hi Adrie Stoopen,
You've deleted a section of a major road. Is that intended and correct?

Hi BCNorwich, I've just noticed you have already sorted out the multiple names issue. Do you mind if I revert to the previous residential area mapping and just add a place node (or a place polygon, if you prefer) for the neighbourhood?

Hi Imangus,
These residential areas are not called "Redrow" (that's a construction company's name). I think these names should be removed, do you agree?
There is an unofficial name, assigned by Redrow, "Hauxton Meadows". I'm not sure how attached are the residents of Hauxton to it. If it is in common use it may be a good idea to place a place=neighbourhood node in it.
There is also a "Hauxton Meadows" name on the construction area, which is valid, but this area has now shrunk considerably. If you meant the construction work is still ongoing outside of it, please feel free to stretch it as needed.
Best regards,
ndrw6

No worries, it was indeed trickier than I initially thought it is. It should be fixed now. Please let me know if you spot any problems.