Thanks. I just commented on their most recent changeset to suggest that place=farm might be better than leisure=park.

They're private, but they probably still want deliveries etc., so I can see why they want a searchable POI.

It probably doesn't help them that TN14 7SF was only assigned this April. Prior to this, the UPRN for their property (10070020199) appears to have been associated with the postcode TN14 7PQ.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business.

You have added a POI describing it as a park, which seems unlikely as you put "private" in almost every field the iD editor presented to you (cleaned up by another user).

Would place=farm better describe the situation? There's a link to the documentation below.

osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Dfarm

Thanks for catching this and updating it. As the original mapper put "NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC" in almost every tag presented by iD, maybe it should be access=private?

Please don't remove the building=* tag. A change in the business does not normally remove the containing building.

Reinstated in osm.org/changeset/137045248

That was an odd one. USRN 8100895 (Numbered Street record, presumably A3211) only extends up the southbound carriageway between the service road under The Mermaid and Upper Thames Street, but covers all of the other carriageway.

Possibly better to map it all as highway=primary, but without adding ref=A3211 to the bit between Queen Victoria Street and the service road?

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

If it's a permissive footpath, it may be worth adding the foot=permissive tag to it.

There's some documentation on the wiki at osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

No problem. If you just reinstate the area=yes tag on way/534299476, it'll resolve it without losing any of the other highway/building intersections you've fixed (thanks for doing those, btw).

You may find that some QA tools will give a false positive where you have pedestrian or footway areas sharing nodes with buildings.

Are you sure you wanted to change the footway area into a linear (and routeable) footway around its perimeter?

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/136815350

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/136815350

Thanks! The alignments looked decidedly iffy around there when I added the USRNs.

The data that you’re editing is shared with everyone else. Please don’t add fictitious motorways or delete areas of woodland which are clearly visible on aerial imagery.

If you’re not sure about what you’re doing, perhaps head over to https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7/none and ask a question there - I’m sure someone will be able to help you.

The data that you’re editing is shared with everyone else. Please don’t
add non-existent railway lines to the map. It's *very* unlikely that local mappers would have missed a railway line in South-East England.

If you’re not sure about what you’re doing, perhaps head over to https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7/none and ask a question there - I’m sure someone will be able to help you.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

While the site is being redeveloped, it might be better to tag the area as landuse=construction + construction=residential.

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dconstruction

Please don't add features which already exist on the map.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

If you're adding a footpath as a highway=footway, you often don't need to add any access tags, as the default access in the UK is assumed to be foot=yes (only).

Adding access=no won't affect pedestrian routing, but will cause the path to be rendered by OSM Carto (the default map style) as a faint grey dotted line rather than the usual red.

The iD editor isn't that helpful here, as it presents general access and motor vehicle access for all highways, even ones where they are unlikely to be appropriate (e.g. footway, cycleway, bridleway, pedestrian and path).

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Are you sure that Bute Avenue is private *access*?

Looking at the Bing Streetside imagery, it's certainly privately owned (ownership=private). It does not appear to be gated and is signed as "no through road" rather than something more restrictive, so presumably residents can received visitors, deliveries and taxis without prior permission. Perhaps access=destination would be a better fit than access=private here?

osm.wiki/Tag:ownership%3Dprivate
osm.wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values

https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=51.503626%7E0.089829&lvl=21.5&mo=om.1&pi=-18&style=x&dir=83.7

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

For the coffee shop side of your business, it may be worth adding a separate amenity=cafe + cuisine=coffee_shop node next to the bike shop with the same address tags (and things like opening_hours, diet:vegetarian/vegan/gluten_free, etc.).

It's not the most elegant solution, but OSM has a "One feature, one OSM element" principle. On the plus side, both icons should be rendered on OpenCycleMap.

You may also want to tweak the address a little, so that it has addr:street="High Street" + addr:suburb="Green Street Green"

If you need any help, feel free to ask.

The is_sidepath=* proposal looks like a good replacement for name=* on sidewalks. However, it's still at the RFC stage and as far as I know the only routing software which currently uses it is cycle.travel, which isn't a pedestrian router.

Before the proposal goes to a vote, could I suggest adding is_sidepath:of:name=* while retaining name=* for now. This is the approach I will take for some of the sidewalks I've added in the near future.

The justification in the wiki for asserting that name=* should not be used on a footway=sidewalk is from your own recent edit. Perhaps this should be discussed on OSM Community first - you may well get a consensus agreeing with you.

If the proposal moves to a vote and is accepted, I feel that would be the time to discuss the timescale (if any) to migrate tagging from name=* to is_sidepath:of:name=*

Thanks!