Thanks for spotting and fixing that. Late last year, a mapper (who has now thankfully deleted their account) created a lot of egregious mapping for the renderer. Fixing it is taking a while, but @papaj and @jajanja3 are doing a pretty good job of it.

(Review requested)

Hi, thanks for updating your details. It looks fine to me.

Perhaps not so much a correction as a misunderstanding of what highway=cycleway means?

Thanks. There's also a proposed traffic order referring to Disraeli Walk. However, a source which definitely isn't compatible with OSM gives another name.

I added a note as well:
osm.org/note/4607531

You accidentally dragged a railway switch in this changeset. Repaired in osm.org/changeset/161937210

Hi, just to let you know that if a segment of highway already has cycleway:both=* or cycleway:left=* + cycleway:right=*, then a cycleway=yes tag is likely to conflict when data consumers try to process the way.

There's some documentation on the OpenStreetMap wiki here osm.wiki/Key:cycleway

Thanks - I should have spotted that when I last updated those roads. From the Bing street side imagery, it looks like the deleted segment may be a footway?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, the buildings which you merged do not actually overlap and the process of merging lost information about one of the buildings ( osm.org/way/601848558/history )

You should be able to see the gap between the buildings in the Bing street side imagery here
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.537625%7E-0.042093&lvl=21.1&mo=om.1&pi=-8.7&style=x&dir=333.2

Are you absolutely certain that this crossing has reopened? I ran that way a few weeks ago and the temporary crossing (mapped to the NW) was still in use.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm afraid that you can't use the Royal Mail website's postcode finder as a source for OSM, as this breaches their copyright and is explicitly prohibited by their terms and conditions - https://www.royalmail.com/postcode-finder-term-conditions-en

You can use postcode centroids for some addresses, which are published by Ordnance Survey as OSM-compatible open data in their Code-Point Open product. These are available as an overlay in the iD editor which you are using.

There is more information on UK addressing and postcodes here - https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/

"No through road for public vehicles" is already covered by the motor_vehicle=private tag (although motor_vehicle=destination is closer to that description) and it's still a section of road rather than just a footpath. As the adjacent sections of Copped Hall have access=private, this section shouldn't have been reachable using most routing software - what are you using?

You "only just saw this" 5 months later?

Read the wiki. If you don't like an established and documented mapping style, render your own map tiles.

It might be worth adding the estimated width to the track/Dirtham Road. There's no guarantee that Tesla's satnav will pay any attention to this, but it might help others. osm.wiki/Key:est_width

Thanks!

Did you notice the was:highway=footway tag, or the fact that this was isn't currently connected to any other routable footways? Maybe there's a reason for that...

Thanks!

@VLD282 thanks! I've removed the sidewalks and added a couple of accessibility details in osm.org/changeset/161465072

No problem, I saw Andrew's more detailed comment on your other changeset after I'd posted here.

With pedestrian routing applications built upon OSM data, we have to hope that it will be sensible and assign a high cost to edges which have maxspeed=70 mph and/or and maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_dual (already mapped here) and no sidewalk or verge (not yet mapped).

If you felt inclined, you could add appropriate sidewalk and verge tags where they're missing. I've linked to the documentation for these tags below.

Happy mapping!

osm.wiki/Key:sidewalk
osm.wiki/Key:verge

Please don't do this unless pedestrians are explicitly prohibited by law and there is signage to indicate this (specifically the pedestrians prohibited sign, TSRGD diagram 625.1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_625.1.svg )..

Access tags in OpenStreetMap represent the legal situation, not an individual's vague feeling about whether a route might not be the most pleasant choice for a stroll.

osm.wiki/Key:access

Hi @VLD282

While there are no firm guidelines in the wiki which support @Derick Rethans emphasis here, it might be worth considering when it might be useful to added separate sidewalks and when it might be better to tag them as sidewalk=$side and sidewalk:$side:surface=* on the way representing the road.

If you have a road with reasonably spaced formal crossing points, usually a major road, then adding separate sidewalks *and* crossings can be very useful for pedestrian routing. If care is taken to capture all the accessibility features like kerb height and tactile paving, this is also useful for routing applications for users with mobility and visual impairments. The nearby A404 Harrow Road is a good example of this.

In the case of Bathurst Gardens, which is a quiet residential street, pedestrians can cross safely at any point. It is also a street where the houses are pre-motor car terraces (very common in towns and cities in the UK), so there are few or no driveways intersecting the sidewalks. With separate sidewalks here and no crossing points or intersection driveways, a pedestrian router will make crossing the street from number 90 to number 87 take a "scenic" route adding half a kilometre via the crossing at the Wrottesley Road end ( osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.533842%2C-0.226386%3B51.533575%2C-0.226327 ). This became even worse moving towards the junction with College Road, as the separate sidewalks you added were not connected to the mapped crossing at that end (fixed pro tem in osm.org/changeset/161455611 ). If you are adding separate sidewalks, please also remember to update the tags on the parent highway.

In this case, I feel that these sidewalks should be removed, however I am not in the habit of deleting the work of other active users without discussion and will not do so unless you or someone else from Meta's mapping team are satisfied that this is reasonable.