Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#modified geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#modifiedgeometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please could you use a meaningful changeset comment, as "#Modified geometry" conveys no useful information whatsoever about what you were trying to achieve.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please also see
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
and
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Although it would duplicate locked:conditional, would it be worth adding foot=permissive (?) + foot:conditional=no @ (...) for data consumers which are only aware of access tags?

Ne serait-il pas plus avantageux pour « le propriétaire » si vous utilisiez correctement addr:street=* et ajoutiez addr:unit=* ?

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The edit you made, adding the cuisine tag to a cafe, is fine.

However, you need to add a meaningful comment to your changeset. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

No, it's fine, what you did was absolutely correct. Hopefully the county council will update their PRoW info eventually - the current extract is from Dec 2023 ( https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/herts/broxbourne/cheshunt/ )

Thanks.

Where the Erie Rail Trail crosses Ash Street, the crossing ways ( osm.org/way/1153622962 and osm.org/way/1153622957 ) are tagged as highway=crossing rather than (e.g.) highway=cycleway + cycleway=crosIng. As highway=crossing is only valid on a node, this breaks routing in Garmin and other OSM-derived applications. I don't know what type of highway or access tags would apply over this crossing, but please could you update accordingly?

This is how OSRM fails to traverse the crossing for pedestrians:
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=41.0415134%2C-73.9182722%3B41.0412039%2C-73.9180442#map=18/41.041313/-73.918526

See osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing
"This tag is only used on nodes. If a crossing is also represented by a way, tag the way with a different highway=* value corresponding to the kind of path that crosses the street, for example highway=footway footway=crossing for a pedestrian crossing."

Has the crossing been formally closed and public right of way (Cheshunt FP 22) diverted?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for spotting the missing access=private tag on the allotment track.

For the foot=no tags added to the A523, I have checked the available Bing Streetside 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 partially reverted your edit in osm.org/changeset/163794968

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

My initial attempt, for micro natural=wood polygons in LB Lewisham with area < 10 m^2 and based on OSM extracts from yesterday is osm.org/changeset/163786073

I hadn't realised how much that mapper had abused natural=scrub. Unfortunately they've got form for blatant mapping for the renderer and don't reply to changeset comments. If you look at the edit history of area:highway=residential polygons around there, you'll see that a lot of them were initially mis-mapped as highway=service + area=yes because that is rendered in OSM Carto.

See also https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2024/05/river-wogebourne.html

No problem, thanks for the quick reply. That definitely sounds like motor_vehicle=private, so I've updated it in osm.org/changeset/163777678

It may take a few weeks for changes to propagate to routing software.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You probably didn't intend to delete Norway Drove, which is part of public footpath ER14 ( osm.org/way/49431750 ). I've undeleted it in osm.org/changeset/163776528

I notice that it's tagged with motor_vehicle=yes, which implies a legal right for (all) motor vehicles to use the track. This seems unlikely for a public footpath - should it be motor_vehicle=private?

As you map around Grove Park, you'll probably come across a lot of very small natural=wood polygons where one user has mapped the canopies of individual trees. I might have a quick stab at replacing these with natural=tree + diameter_crown=* nodes derived from the centroids of the polygons this afternoon.

... was correctly tagged as highway=secondary

Actual source used: OS OpenMap Local (April 2024)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

In the UK, highway=secondary is used for B roads, which Leigham Park Road does not appear to be.

Please see
osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom
and
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, changing the address of a building on Whitechapel Road does not move it to India Dock Road. Also, deleting the building=yes tag implies that the building at 21 Whitechapel Road is no longer there.

The best way for you to add your business at the current address is to add a point at its physical location on the map. Please let me know if you need any help with this.

I have had to revert your edit in order to restore the building and address. Please could you confirm whether Fujifilm at 21 Whitechapel Road has now closed?

Why? They clearly aren't anything of the sort. Urban living streets in the UK have "Home Zone" signage and are quite rare. Fixed by another mapper.