Mapping separate cycleways and pavements is allowed and documented in OSM. Please don't delete other people's mapping just because you don't see the point.

Please revert your edit.

Thanks - I didn't realise I'd left that stub connected.

No problem. Where cycling is allowed, just adding bicycle=yes can be enough (or permissive, if that's the value already present for foot). You could also add segregated=no where it's a shared path.

If there's a circular blue sign explicitly permitting cycling, you could change it to highway=cycleway and add segregated=yes/no and foot=yes (this isn't strictly necessary, but someone will eventually add it anyway).

Please don't change highway=footway or highway=cycleway to footway=path. The default access assumptions for footway are unambiguous, those for path are not. Where ways were mapped as cycleways and had access tags (which you should not have removed), this would also break cycle routing.

Unfortunately, the names of some OSM tags are a little unhelpful and counter-intuitive, but for historical reasons we're stuck with them. If it looks like a path, it's probably highway=footway. What the law defines as a footway and everyone in the UK calls a pavement is usually tagged highway=footway + footway=sidewalk.

The mappers who added these features to the map almost certainly chose footpath for a reason.

In my opinion (and other will differ here), the only good use for highway=path is for desire-line paths also tagged with informal=yes, because no access values can safely be inferred in these cases.

I have reversed your changes because it is important that cycle routes are restored before the OSM daily extracts used by routing engines are produced.

Hi, thanks for updating this.

If a footway or road goes through a building, you can split the section where it intersects the building and tag it with tunnel=building_passage. You don't need layer=-1 here.

osm.wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage

You have also tagged ways with foot=designated + bicycle=designated, which is unlikely to be the case. An access value of yes or designated implies a legal right to use a path, and designated is slightly stronger in the UK (used for public rights of way). In these cases the value is more likely to be destination (you can use it to get to the property), permissive (you can use it as a short-cut, but that permission could be withdrawn), or private (residents only, you could also add private=residents).

osm.wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values

Already mapped as osm.org/way/204068874

I am aware that it's 3 years old, but spotted the detached sidewalk on Tudor Road while fixing a typo in a postcode raised by a QA tool.

a) I don't know of any routers which can plot routes which leap between adjacent highway ways, even if the parent highways were tagged with sidewalk:$side=separate. Hopefully routers will ignore the sidewalks, otherwise pedestrians are sent on very circuitous routes. If they don't work for routing and the parent highways don't have sidewalk tags, is this really anything more than tagging for the renderer.

b) No. Doing it properly, which includes noting the crossing type and accessibility features like lowered kerbs and tactile paving. That can't be done without either good street side imagery (not available off main roads here) or a site survey.

An example of what decorative sidewalks does for pedestrian routing is when you ask OSRM, Graphhopper, or Valhalla to take you from 63 Phillip Road to 11 Ilex Road. Without separate sidewalks, the route is a effectively a dot. With them as mapped, it's over half a kilometre.
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.088666%2C1.148702%3B51.088431%2C1.148482#map=19/51.089020/1.147656

Rather than adding decorative sidewalks to residential streets without crossings, just surveying and adding sidewalk=* might be more useful.

The one on the South side of Tudor Road is at least harmless, since it is not connected to other highways. Others are actually detrimental to pedestrian routing, as crossings are not mapped.

I don't really see the benefit to pedestrian navigation in general and VI navigation in particular from adding decorative sidewalks to residential streets without crossings.

Most of what you and @alisonlung added for #waymap-project-SB on minor roads has been or soon will be extirpated. The sidewalks added on main roads are being re-mapped in a less negligent way, at considerable cost in the time and effort of volunteer mappers.

You appear to have tagged two section of the Longbridge Road/Fanshawe Avenue/Barking Northern Relief Road circular junction as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged a section of the A406/A41 sliproad as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition beyond the bus stop and the end of the pavement. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

You appear to have tagged several street section as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
osm.wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

Please could you avoid copying tactile_paving=yes from the crossing node to the highway=footway + footway=crossing way?

From osm.wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways
"On a pedestrian crossing highway=crossing, when the tactile paving is used in a line all across the crossing. Do not use tactile_paving=* on the way when only the two spots where the footway ends are paved differently."

Where there is a short link between the sidewalk way and the crossing way and the tactile paving extends across the full width of the sidewalk, I have started adding it there.

See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2024-May/031331.html

I've seen and updated a few instances of this in Sussex. It might be worth a little edit to tourism=chalet, at least adding building=static_caravan to the "See Also" section.

Looking at that user's other edits, it's probably a DWG issue. I've flagged their account for vandalism.

How can you tell from aerial imagery that these are 36 storey apartment buildings, each containing only 6 flats?

There isn't exactly that, but building=ruins or building=yes + ruins=yes might work. Possibly building:levels=0 and height=0 might be better than using layer=-1 (which probably won't do anything). You could also add them as inner members of the surrounding natural=wood polygon, assuming that the concrete bases create small clearings in the woodland.

osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Druins
osm.wiki/Key:ruins

It might be worth asking for advice on the community forums, as hopefully other mappers have come across a similar problem before.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

In order for data consumers to find you and to display the correct icon on maps, you will need to remove the previous occupier's office=estate_agent tag and add amenity=dentist + healthcare=dentist

osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddentist
osm.wiki/Tag:healthcare%3Ddentist

Please don't add generic wikipedia and wikidata tags. These links should only be about the specific feature.

The tags on the Garrison Stadium tag were probably correct before you replaced them and have been restored.

osm.org/way/92115342

I see. If it's closed to pedestrians as well and the closure looks like it will be long term, there are several ways you could do this.

1) Set access=no and remove the foot and bicycle tags

2) Change it to highway=construction + construction=cycleway

3) Use the disused:* lifecycle prefix, changing highway=cycleway to disused:highway=cycleway

Option 2 has the advantage that StreetComplete will periodically prompt users to check whether it has reopened.

Whichever you use, it is worth adding a note tag briefly describing the situation and a check_date tag.