The Verdo development may exist, or at least be under construction, but not within your exaggerated and crudely drawn boundary, nor will it be large enough to describe as a suburb. Please map it accurately and tag it appropriately.

Details of the development are in LB Houndslow's planning application 00703/A/P11, which is not an OSM-compatible source.

I'm rather more concerned about the creation of the imaginary River Midway (now deleted).

In that case, please accept my apologies.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, etc.

Another mapper has taken the time to map these individual trees. Whether you think they are unnecessary or not is immaterial. Please revert your changeset.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for adding Margaux.

If I could make one minor comment, the phone number should be in international format, so "+44 20 73735753" rather than national format. Full details on the phone=* tag are on the wiki at osm.wiki/Key:phone

That looks fine, it's just added the new tag and hasn't deleted any other tags.

Please read the wiki before you change the value of ref=* for an object. For aeroway=runway, this should be:

'the runway designator (for example "02/20" or "09L/27R"). List the smallest designator first (i.e. "04/22", not "22/04"). The two designators of a runway will always differ by 18 (180 degrees) and can have one letter appended (L, C or R). Only use other values in special cases.'

Prefixing the ref with "Runway " appears to be an ill-advised attempt to tag for the renderer.

osm.wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Drunway

Your changeset description does not adequately justify vandalising the map by removing the name:cy tag.

After doing a test edit on another object with Healthsites.io, it appears that it simply deletes any tags which the application is not aware of, so this is not the mapper's fault.

Repaired in osm.org/changeset/82317212

Test edit with healthsites.io, which:
- used an address supplied via the website to add addr:full=*, but also deleted all other addr:*=* tags without warning
- added undocumented operational_status=* tag
- deleted building:part=* tag
- deleted contact:website=* tag
- deleted level=*
- deleted start_date=*
I suspect that it may delete any tag which the healthsites.io developers are not interested in, which is unacceptable.

Repaired in osm.org/changeset/82316909

Similarly, the polygon from which you removed the building tag appears to correspond to the main hospital building in aerial imagery, so I do not believe this should have been removed.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap,

Why do you believe that the branch of M&S has suddenly become a place of worship, oddly one without any specific religion or denomination?

What are your sources for this edit?

When I map sidewalks/footways, I do try to map both sides as highway=footway + footway=sidewalk (or highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + segregated=*) in order for a sidewalk=separate tag on the main carriageway to be consistent.

Sometimes it isn't practical to reach the ideal of mapping both sides, due to the available imagery, but is still useful for a walking or cycling route relation. There are parts of the Capital Ring path where the side of the road matters, as the signs and route markers are often only on one side of the road.

In some parts of London there is very good OS map imagery available via NLS historic maps which even shows the kerb line for roads substantially unaltered since the 1960s.

You may not feel that there is a need for a separate footpath, but someone has taken the time to survey and map it. Some people find them useful for pedestrian routing and navigation, so unless the mapped objects are actually incorrect, please do not delete them.

The user whose edit you deleted has been doing a lot of work refining the mapping of walking routes, where the side of the road and where you cross actually matter.

The locations and types of crossing and how they link to the footway are also useful for pedestrian routing as they can provide additional accessibility information.

Please consider reverting your edit.

Please also see
osm.wiki/Guidelines_for_pedestrian_navigation

Thanks for fixing the asl/traffic_signals ordering.

If you wish to argue that inaccessible features should not be mapped and should be deleted, perhaps you should raise it on the talk-gb list first?

Your justification for deletion appears to be that they are not displayed as you would wish by some renderers, which could be considered a defect with the renderer rather than the underlying map data. The fact that they are rendered does not cause them to be physically accessible. Again, assuming that someone will be "encouraged" to use a way simply because it is mapped when it is clearly prohibited does not strike me as a convincing one.

It matters little whether you or I consider a feature useful if another mapper has taken the time and effort to map it.

osm.org/way/146460599 is also inaccessible to the public, would you argue that this should also be deleted?

The footways which you deleted had access=no, so in what way do you believe they "encouraged" people to walk on electrified railway lines? There are many features mapped on OSM which are neither accessible to the public, nor are they used by routing software. This does not seem an adequate reason to delete those features from the map. You may consider them pointless, other data consumers may not.

I think you're right, but I'll start a discussion on the tagging list before doing anything rash like updating the wiki pages or transposing the order of the nodes in my edits.

Hi, Welcome to OSM and thanks for updating the map. You requested a review on your edit, so the obvious remark is that your changeset comment "#jpmc0221" does not give any useful information. Have the two buildings which you deleted been demolished? If they have been and they are now building sites, the areas could perhaps be tagged with landuse=construction ( osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dconstruction ).

Hi, just a quick question about putting the highway=traffic_signals node "before" the cycleway=asl node.

The wiki entry for cycleway=asl has "a marked area for cyclists in front of the stop line for motor traffic", together with a diagram only showing the case where there is a single highway=traffic_signals (where obviously the ASL can only be mapped "before" the traffic signals).

I wonder if it's worth raising it on the tagging list, particularly wrt processing the nodes for routing, then updating the wiki entries to clarify.

I have always mapped the nodes the other way around, so I may have a few edits to make...