Documentation here osm.wiki/Relation:restriction

Yes, they are. That's what "except=psv" meant in the restriction relations you deleted, so the net effect of your edit is to allow *everything* to enter the bus station.

Please familiarise yourself with the documentation on restriction relations before you start deleting them.

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/145759048

Thanks for spotting and fixing that, that was rather careless of me.

Reverted by another user in osm.org/changeset/145707221

What does "busmiles snap to road" mean? If you explain what you are trying to achieve in your changeset description and reply to comments, other mappers may be able to help you. If you don't reply, your changes may be reverted in order to fix errors.

The tags added were all present on the surrounding leisure=stadium polygon. I have restored w190137168 to leisure=pitch in osm.org/changeset/145698568

To add the business to the map, you will need to add it as a POI (a point in the iD editor which you used) at its physical location, rather than adding descriptive tags to the road.

You also need a tag to tell data consumers what sort of POI it is, which would probably be something like craft=plumber. There is a link to the documentation below.

osm.wiki/Key:craft

Incorrectly. Reverted.

Correct use of highway=living_street is quite rare in the UK and in urban areas is designated (and signed with TSRGD diagram 881) as a Home Zone.

This is not the case here, as it is explicitly signed as a pedestrian zone (TSRGD diagram 618.3, pre-2016) in the Bing street side imagery.

The argument in your early changeset #132874014 the a pedestrian way cannot have separate sidewalks seems a little flawed.

Adding access=yes and motor_vehicle=designated to an explicitly signed pedestrian zone, will have caused routing errors.

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/145649086

Could you explain how "busmiles snap to road" means "effectively removed a road from the map by deleting the highway=* tag"?

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Is Fastrack now open to all traffic, as implied by access=yes?

What does "busmiles snap to road" mean anyway?

Thanks for updating this. I've slightly tweaked the tagging in osm.org/changeset/145616125

These might have been more helpful if you had checked the imagery in order to put them in the right places, which was certainly not the case for n9763878445.

More cycle lane tags added without checking the available imagery.

More cycle lanes imported from #tflcid without condescending to check for conflicts with existing tagging or more recent aerial imagery.

Added cycle lanes without checking the aerial imagery or conflicts with existing mapping. Over a year later, I'm still wasting time as an unpaid volunteer clearing up the mess caused by your paid "mapping". Thanks.

What value or additional information does adding crossing:markings=yes convey when added to crossing=marked? Neither actually give data consumers any useful information about the actual type of crossing.

All this does is tell me that there is a marked crossing which is marked.

This changeset appears to have introduced a lot of separated carriageways where no physical separation actually exists.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138527531

Are the licenses of the site plan and council planning documents compatible with OpenStreetMap?

osm.wiki/Copyright_information_for_UK_mappers

Adding cycle lanes without checking existing tagging or more recent aerial imagery was extremely unhelpful. 18 months later I'm still clearing up the mess from the paid "mappers" working on TfLCID.

Is this not just mapping for the renderer?

The curve here may be more visually appealing, but it does not really exist - the highway simply splits between single and dual carriageway. If TomTom want features like this smoothed, surely they can implement it in their own map tiles.

Additional nodes removed in osm.org/changeset/145369195