I am no fan of "satnav idiots" either and will do what I can to help, but within OSM's rules.

Some of these problems are very difficult or impossible to solve, unless Cornwall CC bring in additional restrictions with traffic orders.

There is no street side imagery of the affected roads available with an OSM-compatible licence. If you or other local residents are able to capture and upload imagery with the Mapillary app, that could be very helpful.

For narrow roads, you can use narrow=yes and lane_markings=no. If possible, add est_width=*, or better still width=* (but this requires using a tape measure) with a single value at the narrowest point. You may need to split the road if there's a distinct narrow section. Adding lanes=1 and passing_places=yes or passing_places=no (as appropriate) may help, together with the positions of passing places as highway=passing_place nodes.

Capturing the smoothness=* values for potholed sections may help. I find the StreetComplete app (Android only) is very good for this. You can split a road in the app if the smoothness changes significantly along the road.

If there are red triangular warning signs (and I appreciate that there may not be, due to Cornwall CC's budget constraints), you can tag both the sign and use the appropriate hazard=* tag on the affected section of road. See:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/2/made
osm.wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards

If the three parish councils in this area write to some of the satnav providers like TomTom, that might help.

I understand the frustration caused by rat running traffic. The street on which I live was a rat run until a Low Traffic Neighbourhood modal filter, with a signed prohibition of motor vehicles was introduced.

However, we can only record facts in OpenStreetMap. Adding fictitious access restrictions and reclassifying highways in an attempt to break satnav routing is likely to be considered vandalism.

Of particular concern in this changeset, but not an exhaustive list:

w146337398 - this is a highway=unclassified, changing it to service would imply that it is an access road and probably not a public highway. I do not believe this to be the case.

highway=living_street - unless it is explicitly signed as a Home Zone (TSRGD diagram 886) or a Quiet Lane (diagram 884), then it is a highway=residential or highway=unclassified

Private roads should generally be access=private (often gated), or access=destination + ownership=private (not gated, open and routeable for deliveries, taxis, visitors, etc.). Neither should be treated as through routes by routers.

est_width - metres are the default unit, so need not be included. Using a tilde for a range of widths is undocumented and will result in the field being ignored as unparseable. I am not convinced that these roads are at any point as narrow as 1.5 metres.

You added access=destination to a BOAT (Byway Open to All Traffic). It's a public *right* of way, which already had the correct access tags.

Use of discouraged as an access tag - hgv=discouraged is fine if (and only if) it is signed as "unsuitable for HGVs" (TSRGD diagram 820A).

You can find the road signs referred to above in Schedule 11 TSRGD 2016. These signs can also be added to OSM as nodes on the highway at the point closes to the actual sign, e.g. "Unsuitable for HGVs" would be traffic_sign=GB:820A + hgv=discouraged
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made
osm.wiki/Key:traffic_sign

I am afraid that you edit introduced a number of tags which you may not have fully understood before using them, including highway=living_street, access=discouraged and maxspeed:type. Due to the number of errors introduced, I have reverted this changeset.

Please familiarise yourself with the documentation of tags before using them.
osm.wiki/

Restriction removed in osm.org/changeset/143853632

You don't need to add access=permissive here (or any other value for the access tag), as it's a public *right* of way. Tagging as highway=bridleway already implies foot=yes + bicycle=yes + horse=yes + (everything else)=no. Adding access=permissive effectively turns it into a permissive route for motor vehicles, which is unlikely to be correct.

If it's signed as a public bridleway, you could add designation=public_bridleway and change the foot, bicycle and horse access to designated.

There's a guide to PRoW tagging at osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

Thanks for updating this.

I have added public right of way designation and access tags to it, using information from https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-urban/

Has the cycle track along the north side of Chalvey Road West been removed? If not, why have you deleted it?

This was part of the botched TfLCID import, abandoned in 2023-01. TfL's surveyors took photographs in 2017, which are part of the dataset. It is highly unlikely that @luxiaghd looked at these, or any other data sources in order to understand the context of the imported node.

https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG071380_1.jpg
https://cycleassetimages.data.tfl.gov.uk/RWG071380_2.jpg

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/143713694

Hi,

You have tagged your business as a solar panel (which won't render on most map styles), rather than as your shop/office/factory etc. which is presumably located here.

If you would like some help, I would be happy to provide it.

Thanks. I'll be down there next Sunday, so I'll check whether the object has been duplicated.

This isn't a highway=service road, so I have restored it to highway=secondary. I suspect this may have been an unintended result of text completion in the iD editor.

You appear to have tagged two section of the A650 as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Thanks!

Thanks for adding these. They really help for pedestrian routing and make it easier to add accessibility features like tactile paving and kerb heights with tools like StreetComplete.

It's not absolutely necessary for pedestrian routing, but you can add footway=sidewalk to pavements and footway=crossing to the parts of footways which cross roads (you may need to split them at the kerb line).

Adding surface=* and lit=* may be useful for routing.

You can also update the sidewalk tagging on the road, e.g. sidewalk:both=separate where both are mapped separately.

Please don't add foot=no to the road unless there is a real and (in the UK) explicitly signed prohibition. Routers may use sidewalk:*=separate as a hint to avoid the road.

Thanks!

The "reasoning" was dubious, by a user who had not bothered to read either the original mapper's changeset comments or the wiki for landuse=grass. I would have marked the changeset as bad in OSMCha had you not already marked it as a good.

Yes, please revert.

The grass verges still exist, or are at least still visible in Bing aerial and street side imagery. Whether or not you or I feel that that another users's micromapping is "unnecessary" or or not is immaterial.

The landuse=grass polygons were mapped in line with the wiki: "A tag for a smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in the middle of a dual carriageway."
osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass

In any case, Pokémon Go users used to cheat by adding fictitious leisure=park polygons, a tactic which a friend who plays the game informs me has not worked for several years. I have never heard of landuse=grass being abused in this way and feel that it is unlikely that Niantic would have wanted to encourage players to wander into the middle of traffic islands and dual carriageways.

Verges reinstated in osm.org/changeset/143527343

The landuse=grass polygons were probably added because they exist. It may be micromapped more than you might like, but unless they've been removed from reality there's no compelling reason to remove them from the map.

According to a friend who plays Pokémon Go, adding leisure=park (which was the most common way for players to cheat) and similar objects no longer works and hasn't done for some time.

Updated in osm.org/changeset/143525165