Thanks for fixing that! I really should check for mis-tagged living streets (nearly all of them in London) as part of routine QA.

Thanks. I'm reasonably sure that the crossings here have been upgraded from pelican to toucan since the last Bing street side image capture. I've added a note for confirmation, which will hopefully be resolved by one of the local mappers before my next visit.

osm.org/note/4663679

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding the speed limit on Sherfield Avenue. Where it's the default 30 mph limit on a restricted road (one with street lighting) like this, you can optionally add maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_restricted

It helps other mappers if you leave a meaningful changeset comment - see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi jajana3/mapeing/demise123/demisee,

Please don't map for the renderer. There is no physical carriageway separation on Castlemaine Avenue where it joins Grange Road at its western end, just paint markings.

Adding fiction to the map because you think it looks prettier in OSM Carto is unhelpful and detrimental to routing.

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer

Partially reverted in osm.org/changeset/163557020

If the building is still there, it still needs a building=* tag.

(Review requested)

That's right. Sometimes the choice of landuse or natural as a key can seem a bit arbitrary.

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this. It looks fine to me.

No problem, thanks for getting back to me.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, your edit dragged a fence and a tree row across other map features. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/163523175

I've uploaded the trace as osm.org/user/rskedgell/traces/11784266

Thanks! Traffic planners like to make things challenging for mappers :-)

I'll be doing a few more updates this week, roughly following the route of Sunday's half marathon, while it's till fresh in my memory.

Hi, just a quick reminder that sidewalk=separate applies only when there the separate sidewalk is drawn as a footway in OSM. If there is a sidewalk separated by a verge, but not drawn separately, the tagging you probably want is sidewalk=both + verge=both

It's great for our older housing stock. I've tended to add source:addr:housenumber=NLS... or interpolation, in case actual street surveys find that houses have been renumbered. That's partly buildings being subdivided, but also renumbering when roads have been renamed.

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

The only thing I might change would be to split the roads where they pass through/under buildings, using the tag tunnel=building_passage rather than layer=-1. Therese more information at osm.wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage

Could I ask you about access on roads within the development? If there's a gate at the entrance from the public part of Lisgar Terrace and visitors/taxis/delivery vehicles need to be let in, then the current access=private is fine. If visitors can just drive in, then ownership=private + access=destination might be a better fit.

(Review requested)

Thanks for spotting this and updating the map.

I've made a couple of additional tweaks, including adding highway=crossing nodes where the path intersects the A264 and adding the "!" hazard signs on the carriageway - see osm.org/changeset/163314419

Hopefully the crossing nodes will help the navigation applications which you use will do something useful with the tags on the carriageways (particularly maxspeed=70 mph + expressway=yes). You may have to wait a couple of weeks for their systems to update.

Please don't map for the renderer by adding pretend dual carriageway segments where no physical lane separation exists.

See osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are *not* to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines, hatched areas, channelized turn lanes, two-way turn lanes, by flush medians, or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."

Hi,

The tactile_paving=yes tag has a different meaning on nodes and ways. On a way, it means that tactile paving exists for the full length of the way, which is *never* the case on a pedestrian crossing of a public highway anywhere in the UK.
osm.wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways

I've also undeleted w1322148795. Please do not delete objects which exist and have been added by other mappers.

Creating dual carriageways where there is no physical separation between the lanes is mapping for the renderer. Please do not do this. If TomTom wish to represent unsegregated traffic lanes separately, that should be accomplished in TomTom's own rendering and routing software, not OSM-Carto.

See osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are not to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines, hatched areas, channelized turn lanes, two-way turn lanes,
by flush medians, or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/163278990

Thanks, that looks fine to me.

Please don't map for the renderer by creating non-existent sections of dual carriageway, as you have done on Cherry Blossom to the North of its junction with Tomalin Drive.

While you may feel that it looks better on the map when a non-existent split is introduced, not following established mapping conventions can impact other data consumers.

From osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are not to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated

by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines[1], hatched areas, channelized turn lanes[2], two-way turn lanes[2],
by flush medians[3],
or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."