Leaving us with strange zigzags which clearly don't exist. Thanks for that.

I think it was an unconnected node where it joined the cycleway, but I've also added explicit foot=yes tags (probably redundant).

Done. It's got the default access for a footway (an implicit foot=yes), but it's unlikely to route random people that way as it's a dead end.

osm.org/changeset/137958485

Yes, just use "proposed:building" as the tag name instead of "building". You could prefix other tags for the proposed buildings with "proposed:" as well, but building is the one which really matters.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and many thanks for adding this.

It might be better to tag it as following, although most pedestrian routing software is unlikely to be aware of it before the 9th.

bridge:structure=floating
bridge=yes
description=Silverworks Island Temporary Bridge, in place on the 1st, 2nd and 9th July 2023 .
foot:conditional=yes @ (2023 Jul 01-02 12:00-17:00; 2023 Jul 09 12:00-17:00)
foot=no
highway=footway
layer=1
name=Silverworks Island Temporary Bridge
seamark:bridge:category=pontoon
seamark:type=bridge

I'm happy to add these, if you have no objections.

If you do have OSM-compatible sources for proposed buildings, please could you tag them as proposed:building=* rather than building=*, as objects which do not yet exist should not be rendered on the map, or available to data consumers as if they did.

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

That could be a problem, however I am *not* an expert on copyright and licensing. OSM's Licensing Working Group may be able to clarify if you are unsure.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group

The Greater London Authority release a lot of open data under OGLv3, but this does not appear to apply to the whole london.gov.uk site:

"The site contains copyright material, trade names and other proprietary information, including, but not limited to, text, photos, graphics, video and audio. The entire contents of the site are protected by copyright law. We, or our licensors, own copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to it."

https://www.london.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions/terms-and-conditions-use-our-website-and-talk-london-website

What are your sources for these updates? You have not listed any in your changeset tags.

If the source is Croydon Council's planning website, what is the licence for their data? I cannot see anything to indicate that it is covered by an OSM-compatible one like the Open Government Licence (OGL).

Has the Premier Inn here closed?

Grow up.

Vandalism reverted in osm.org/changeset/137933817

One short section of footway is tagged as both foot=permissive and designation=public_footpath, which seems to be contradictory.

The PRoW data for Kent/Sevenoaks Urban suggests that this is part of public footpath SU30, but OSM currently has this path following a different alignment.

As this is all on National Trust land, hopefully it's something you can check and correct more easily than me.

osm.org/way/1134826307
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-urban/

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

When you add a separate sidewalk to a road, there is also a sidewalk tag on the road which can be updated so that data consumers are aware of it.

You can use the "Pavement" overlay in StreetComplete to update these tags, which can sometimes be quicker and easier than doing it with iD.

osm.wiki/Key:sidewalk

Removing highway=residential from Calle Los Alpes ( osm.org/way/146994337 ) stops it functioning as a road for display and routing purposes. This is probably not what you intended to achieve.

Hi, thanks for updating your business on OpenStreetMap. Your opening hours are just entered as "Mond" - if you let me know what they should be, I'd be happy to update them in OSM's format.

I am not convinced that the landuse=orchard was an error in need of correction to natural=wood here. I'm pretty sure @ramthelinefeed knew what they were tagging after surveying it on the ground.

Thanks for doing this!

I don't know if it's in scope for what you're doing, but North London has a lot of source:maxspeed=GB:urban, frequently superseded by a more recent maxspeed=20 mph

If it is no entry at both ends, it would be better to tag it with access=no (possibly with an explanatory note=* tag) rather than delete an object which is clearly visible on the aerial imagery. Deleting something instead of changing its tags may result in someone adding it back from aerial imagery later, without any details of access restrictions only visible on the ground.

If it is just no entry at one end, the oneway=yes tag it had already covered this, as long as it was operating in the right direction.

Would it be worth keeping the man_made=water_tower tag, assuming that it's still in use as such?

Thanks.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your details.

It would be worth adding a tag to tell data consumers what sort of business you are. From a quick skim of your website, I think you just deliver, rather than sell to the public at your premises?

Perhaps adding industrial=distributor or industrial=warehouse might fit? Descriptions of these tags are at the link below.
osm.wiki/Key:industrial

You could add the more specific trade=agricultural_supplies, but that is normally used with shop=trade, which you probably wouldn't want.