Thanks!

I note you've deleted a few ref:GB:usrn tags, however those tags were only added to the same extents of roads as in OS Open USRN. I mapped the sections with USRNs as highway=residential and those without as highway=service as there is likely to be a difference in whether the local highway authority or the developer is responsible.

Thanks! The local ones all seem to have been added by the same mapper back in 2012. The wiki at the time probably wasn't as clear about what a highway=living_street should be and few local authorities have created any.

No problem. If I'd been paying attention in the first place, there wouldn't have been anything for you to spot :-)

BTW, you're doing a fantastic job of adding buildings in Newham, thanks!

I realised it was close to 10,000 changesets last weeks and made sure that #10000 was one which I could explain to non-mapping friends when I post about it on social media later, rather than a batch of UPRNs or USRNs :-)

Omitted OS Open Names from sources.

Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons

Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons

Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons

Apologies. I see you've replaced it by a larger landuse=grass polygon covering both sides of the cycle track.

Why delete the landuse=grass polygon? I can understand deleting the increasingly useless landcover=grass tag, but surely it's still grass there.

osm.org/way/768135678

Is there a source for this list?

* Victoria Drive, not Road

It is. There's a letter box with the house number attached to the gate on the building passage through #154.

Feel free to interpret it that way with your own mapping. Please don't inflict your personal view of how tagging should be "standardised" from an armchair on existing and survey-derived mapping by others.

Also, with your replacement of more specific tagging of traffic_signals=* with the pointless traffic_signal=signal, I refer to to the wiki for that tag:

"traffic_signals=signal - A standard traffic signal, typically with three steady aspects. This is the default value in iD for a traffic signal node. Since this kind of signal is assumed for highway=traffic_signals, please choose a more specific value for a more specialized signal."

osm.wiki/Key:traffic_signals

Please don't add tactile_paving to crossing ways which do not have tactile paving along the whole length of the way. In common with almost every pedestrian crossing in London, these don't. Surveying the site, or even looking at the Mapillary imagery would confirm this. THe tactile paving is already and correctly mapped on nodes (only).

osm.wiki/Key:tactile_paving

I see that you have removed the correct crossing=no tag from highway=traffic_signals where the crossing is mapped as a separate node. Please revert, familiarise yourself with the wiki, and desist.

osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals

Also traffic_signals=signal conveys no useful information.

#DWG

I see you have also deleted tactile_paving=yes from nodes at the carriageway edge.

Mapping the actual location of the tactile paving appears to be in line with the wiki.

osm.wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_nodes

It is also added by StreetComplete at either end of a footway=crossing way, so removing them is somewhat futile unless you can persuade the developers to remove that quest.

https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/blob/master/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/quests/tactile_paving/AddTactilePavingKerb.kt

Hi,

You've added crossing:island=yes to two separate crossings (n8266616528 and n1346106463), although neither of these crossings have an island - this is mapped as w962940056. Is this due to some quirk of VI routing software, or am I misreading the wiki here?

osm.wiki/Key:crossing:island

When you add separate footways/sidewalks to roads, would you mind adding the tag sidewalk:both=separate (or sidewalk:left/sidewalk:right as appropriate) to the road as well? Pedestrian routing software should be able to use that information to avoid using the carriageway.

Thanks!

osm.wiki/Key:sidewalk#Separately_mapped_sidewalks