Thanks! I'm still working on them, but it's a long job. I'll try to get some more Mapillary imagery around Bedfont and Westmacott Drive in the next couple of weeks.

The "mapper" responsible for this unnecessary work creation scheme has recently been active again, creating 17 arbitrary leisure=park areas within Bedfont Lakes (cheating at Pokemon Go?) and adding bicycle=yes to footway/sidewalk ways in Bedfont.

I think I've fixed most of these now, but there was another spate of sidewalk/footways turned into fantasy bicycle=yes ways in osm.org/changeset/78522114

I have reverted this changeset, but unfortunately not before they had propagated to OpenCycleMap tiles).

I'll be back again in the next week or two to capture some more Mapillary imagery.

Actually, I see you have made lots of sidewalks into fantasy cycle routes. This vandalism has an adverse impact on routing software. Unless you have evidence that bicycles are allowed on a sidewalk/footway, e.g. the signs in TSRGD diagrams 956 and 957, please do not tag it otherwise.

I also note that you list "streetlevel imagery" as one of your sources. Which street level imagery?

Fully reverted in changeset #8605269
#DWG

Oh dear, I see this is new vandalism you've fixed.

Please stop adding access=yes and motor_car=no to footways and cycleways. It is also unneccessary to add foot=yes to a footway or bicycle=yes to a cycleway. All of these are implicit. #DWG

Thanks. I spent a fun week dealing with some of that mapper's little idiosyncrasies. I was leaving Bedfont Lakes until I get around to doing the parkrun there.

It wouldn't surprise me. I'm planning to make another trip over to Feltham quite soon, mostly to shoot Mapillary images, but I'll try to visit the loci of as many notes as I can.

Thanks! In the UK, highway=cycleway generally implies foot=yes (see osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom ).

This edit is fine as it is, it won't confuse any routing software.

While your changeset comment claims that you have changed the edging of Parsons Green, what you have actually done is changed the N-S route through the green from highway=cycleway to highway=footway. As this forms part of LCN 26 and the crossing at the southern end is a tiger crossing, I am not convinced.

Status quo ante restored in osm.org/changeset/78169399

I very much doubt that this residential street is accessible only to pedestrians. There are a few clues: (1) the parked cars visible on aerial imagery, (2) the fact it is part of a cycle route relation and (3) it is not a new car-free residential development.
As your change could break cycle routing, I have reverted it in osm.org/changeset/78168378

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I notice that you have changed all of St. Marks Close from highway=residential to highway=footway, but both the Bing aerial imagery which you have used and Maxar Premium appear to show parked cars in front of the houses, so access for pedestrians only seems unlikely.

That's great, thanks!

If there's any public footpath signage on Yew Tree Road, particularly at its junction with Ashcombe Road, then foot=designated could probably be added to that section.

If you're local and there isn't any signage, but it is the route walkers "always" use from Dorking West to Denbies, then perhaps just add foot=permissive?

If you could take pics with the Mapillary app (see https://www.mapillary.com/ ), that would make them easily available to other mappers.

I've had a little play with Komoot and I *think* it may be taking the scenic route because of the access=private tag on Yew Tree Road. I've added a note ( osm.org/note/2017947 ). If it hasn't been resolved by the next time I do Mole Valley parkrun, I'll take a look and hopefully upload some imagery to Mapillary.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your changeset comment states that the path which you deleted was marked as one way, which was not the case. Even if it were the case, removing or changing a oneway=* tag would be better than deleting the segment and losing its metadata (partiularly designation=public_footpath and ref=FP 35). The new footway which you created did not in any case have the unnecessary oneway=no tag.

What routing software were you using and what made you believe the segment of footpath was marked as one way?

I have reverted your changeset, osm.org/changeset/78037093

Thanks for catching that.

https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/3414

Thanks @SK53!

Oh, no problem. I may try to raise that as a potential problem with whoever maintains those lists.

Hi, welcome to OSM and many thanks for updating these shops.

I have one minor quibble about changing Upper Crust from amenity=fast_food to shop=bakery. Although it sells the products of a bakery, I doubt it actually bakes fresh bread on the premises (see osm.wiki/Tag:shop%3Dbakery ). It is also used as a fast food outlet, so amenity=fast_food + cuisine=sandwich might be more appropriate.

If you're mapping shops and food premises, you might find the FHRS data a useful way to capture addresses and postcodes from an OSM-compatible data source ( see osm.wiki/UK_2019_Q1_Project:_Food_Hygiene_Ratings and https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/district-175.html ).

I know that NCN route 1 uses Saunders Ness Road, but LCN 1 does not appear to (unless the route relation needs updating). I wanted to check whether anything had actually changed in terms of signage at that location. Unless there’s explicit signage or confirmation from an OSM-compatible official source that it either is or is not a cycle way, highway=footway may be better.

It is extremely unlikely that TfL would base anything on OSM since they have far more detailed and accurate data at their disposal. Some of these data may be finding their way into OSM via release under OGL, not the other way arround (TfL are quite keen on open data, unlike LBTH).

However … “ I do not understand why you keep changing this to something that is not factual” What on Earth do you think that I have changed? Please either comment on the offending changeset, or retract.