Please don't add test data to OpenStreetMap. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/138950680

Live public databases are not the place to put test data. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/138950599

Thanks for reversing this.

Any objection to me moving the pub's tags from the building to the property boundary? It's reasonably clear where that is from Bing aerial imagery and the Land Registry polygons. That should remove the tedious interference with the building polygon.

I have suggested that the other @OHirschfield might want to ask for advice about their Overpass problems on the OSM Community website.

Mapping for the renderer is bad enough, but mapping for a single query?!

A detrimental effect on *what*?

Altering accepted tagging just to suit a your Overpass query does not seem a particularly compelling reason.

If you have problems with your query, why not ask for help from the OSM community?
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

"Better" in what way? Is there any part of the building which is not the pub, which might justify moving the tags from the building polygon to a new point?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map!

That looks fine to me.

The only thing I might suggest changing is that it should be building=semidetached_house (or building=house + house=semi-detached) rather than putting the value in building:part. It's very minor and it's very unlikely to cause anyone any problems.

The building:part tag is mostly used as part of the 3D representation of a building.
osm.wiki/Key:building:part

Thanks for updating this. I've tweaked the tagging a little and removed a couple which related to Bath Store.

osm.org/changeset/138802942

* Cranberry Lane, not Cranberry Close

A prohibition on taxis (and only taxis) on parts of Godstone Road and Warren Road may not be what you are trying to map here.

What is the nature and expected duration of the road closure(s) here? Is there a link to a traffic order on TfL's website or in The Gazette?

Relation #15710507 "Relation for collecting station buildings that are not part of relations" seems to contain a lot of highways and landuse areas which have nothing to do with station buildings.

Is this intentional? If so, why?

I'm fairly sure that Canning Town, Newham isn't in Hackney. I'm absolutely certain that importing traffic calming nodes right next to ones which had already been mapped was both careless and unhelpful.

If you want to explicitly specify a footpath, highway=footway already does that.

It doesn't do any harm to add the extra access tags, but you don't generally need to add horse=no or bicycle=no, or any of the other irrelevant options which the iD editor presents for footways (I wish it didn't). It can be worth adding bicycle=no where it is explicitly signed, but still isn't absolutely necessary.

The OSM wiki lists the UK's default access restrictions for different highway types here.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You asked for a review of this changeset, which looks fine to me. Thanks for helping to update the map!

Thanks for spotting and correcting that.

Is this more of a private residential garden or grassed area than a park?

If so, you could tag it either as:

leisure=garden + garden:type=residential + access=private

or

landuse=grass

Please don't add fictitious features to the map.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/138502628

Thanks. Next time I'm down there with a phone I'll take a couple of pics and try to find a closer value before changing anything.

Thanks!

There's a guide to OSM's access tagging on the wiki here:
osm.wiki/Key:access

I think with this path access=private might be more appropriate (with the same tag on the gate nodes), assuming that you have to be a member/allotment holder to gain access.

The access=customers tag tends to be used more where a customer can just turn up, e.g. retail parks and their car parks.

There's no need to change it if you're happy with the current value. That should still stop routing software from trying to use it as a through route, although it may be a couple of weeks before it takes effect.

This might be better tagged as building=apartments and splitting the surrounding landuse polygon(s). Removing the building=* tag erases the building from the map.