If the paths in Chingford Mount Cemetery are concrete and suitable for vehicles, might highway=service + access=destination + foot=yes work better than using highway=path?

Thanks. I'll have to walk the Three Forests Way at some point in order to fill in the rather large gaps either side of Theydon Mount/Theydon Tawney.

Good point. There doesn't really seem to be a common value for the parking tag which covers it, but I'll remove underground.

You inadvertently dragged node #317083657 at the junction of Alexandra Road and Herbert Road over to Saxon Close.

Fixed in
osm.org/changeset/95283565

Please don't copy and paste material from copyrighted sources.

name=Restaurnt-img Curry Base
website=https://www.chefonline.co.uk/curry-base-battersea-london-sw11/menu

Restored in osm.org/changeset/94793608

Hello again, Maddison Young / Maddison Savage / Keira Bull / Isabelle Rose / Elise Lane / Amy Reid.

Why have you replaced Madhuban's valid website with a ChefOnline URL when ChefOnline's and OSMF's T&Cs prohibit this?
https://www.chefonline.co.uk/terms-and-conditions
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

No, that's definitely something I should have checked before copying. Fixed in osm.org/changeset/94771645

Are you also Maddison Young / Maddison Savage, by any chance?

Thanks, I was probably a bit precipitate in changing the old section of Marshgate Terrace to construction:*. I'll keep an eye on the bits behind Heras fences when I run around there and join up footways as they open.

Reverted, please re-read osm.org/user_blocks/3451

Reverted, please re-read osm.org/user_blocks/3451

Reverted, please re-read osm.org/user_blocks/3451

Reverted, please re-read osm.org/user_blocks/3451

What you could consider doing here is moving the text to a description tag.

As it is tagged as natural=wood, there are other tags which you could use, so for Scots Pines you might use:
leaf_type=needleleaved + leaf_cycle=evergreen + species="Pinus sylvestris"

This would ignore and be incorrect for the larches, but you could consider mentioning them in the description tag. If you can reasonably approximate their positions, you could even map them as individual natural=tree nodes with similar additional tags.

There is more information in the wiki at
osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood

Hi,

The OSM wiki page for the name tag includes this:
"The names should be restricted to the name of the item in question only and should not include additional information not contained in the official name such as categories, types, descriptions, addresses, refs, or notes."
osm.wiki/Key:name

Because it is tagged as highway=cycleway, the OSM Carto (default) and OpenCycleMap tiles render it as a blue dashed line, rather than the red for highway=footway.

If it were mapped as highway=footway + bicycle=yes, it wouldn't be rendered differently, but routing tools would still see it as a cycle route.

There are a couple of other tags which can be very helpful for cycle routing, surface and lit.
osm.wiki/Key:surface
osm.wiki/Key:lit

The name has already been removed by another user, who saw the note I made using Street Complete.
osm.org/changeset/90306454

I hope that's of some help. Thanks for helping to update Hampstead Heath!

NO problem, and apologies for my rather abrasive tone.

I was plotting a route using Komoot (based on OSM data) and found myself having to create and drag more waypoints than usual to coerce the route onto the expected route, so checked the tagging of the OSM objects. Komoot can sometimes be a bit slow to update, so it's not the best tool for checking routing after editing. You can right click on a point on the map on the OSM website and use "Directions from Here", which will give you options to check foot, bicycle and car using either OSRM or GraphHopper. They don't update anywhere near as quickly as map tiles, but it's certainly quicker than Komoot or Strava.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings about whether a shared unsegregated way is tagged as highway=cycleway or highway=cycleway, as long as routing still works. Using highway=cycleway + segregated=no saves tagging access as it implies bicycle=yes + foot=yes (although in QEOP both of these should probably be explicitly tagged anyway, using permissive as they aren't actually rights of way).

However, cycleway doesn't imply anything about pedestrians not having priority, as the general understanding in the UK is that pedestrians have right of way on shared infra anyway. The Highway Code is a bit vague on it as there's no legislation which would allow it to use MUST.

Rule 62 currently includes this wording:
"Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people,
and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly implying pedestrian priority:
"Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you
are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious.
Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary."
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code

And that spurious argument gives you the right to break cycle routing through QEOP by leaving paths with no implied or explicit access?

Access reinstated in osm.org/changeset/90351366, reported to DWG.

Is "Cycle Path" really the name of osm.org/way/19061510 or just a redundant description from the CoL map?

Do you have the URL of the map and confirmation that it has an OSM-compatible license?

Is "Cluster of Scots Pines" really the name of osm.org/way/224482283 or just a description from CoL map?

Do you have the URL of the map and confirmation that it has an OSM-compatible license?