Thanks for updating the crossings!

Where features have been removed, but the aerial imagery hasn't caught up yet, it can be worth using lifecycle prefixes on the features instead of deleting them (e.g. change a crossing=traffic_signals node to was:crossing=traffic_signals). That way, armchair mappers working from aerial imagery are much less likely to incorrectly add them again.

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Has the sign at the entrance to the bus station been changed since Bing's street side imagery was last updated?

If it's still "motor vehicles prohibted, except for buses and access" (TSRGD diagram 619), then it's:
motor_vehicle=destination + bus=designated
Those are the only tags required, access=no + bicycle=yes + foot=yes aren't really necessary.

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.44498%7E0.369115&lvl=22.0&mo=om.1&pi=-6.9&style=x&dir=333.5

The bus lane was already mapped with the older bus:lane=left tag on Home Gardens and has now been replaced with lanes=3 + bus:lanes=1 + bus_bay=left. The mapping for the renderer has been removed.

I see. Having bus=yes or bus=designated should override motor_vehicle=no, vehicle=no, or access=no as the most specific mode should take precedence in routing software.

If something is mapped as highway=busway, as is the case here, I think you can safely remove motor_vehicle and vehicle access tags without causing routing issues for other vehicles.

It might be more of a problem around bus stations where the entry signage on a highway=service road is "no entry except buses" or "no vehicles except buses". Access tags are supposed to follow legal restrictions and in both of these cases, vehicle=no + bus=designated is the effect of the signs. Can I assume that this is the Brouter implementation used in Busmiles.uk's snap to route function?

Thanks. I made a couple of other minor tweaks around that junction for cycle routing, but I've left it with bus=yes rather than designated.

No problem and thanks for the quick reply.

I asked because occasionally some QA tools (and the iD editor) can make some unhelpful suggestions, which mappers follow in good faith.

For additional context, concerns raised in December 2023:
osm.org/changeset/145632324

The problem is that almost every edit you have made has been incorrect and has had to be corrected by other mappers. OpenStreetMap has data consumers other than Busmiles.uk users, who rely on the data being correct and usable.

Please could you explain how deleting the cycleway and sidewalk tags here is a "correction"? Was it suggested by a QA tool, or something else?

I'm curious about why changing bus=designated to bus=yes is a "correction"? Was this suggested by a QA tool, or prompted by something else?

You have been asked repeatedly and politely not to map for the renderer, but persist in making exceptionally poor edits which damage the OSM database.

Thank you for confirming that you do actually read changeset comments and have simply ignored them out in the past.

I've repaired High Street. You can have little idea how bitterly I resent wasting my time fixing damaging edits like yours.

Again, please don't map for the renderer.

Lanes, without physical separation other than paint, are mapped as tags on the same way.

Carriageways with physical separation are mapped as separate ways.

Please read the articles linked below. osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk

Hi, the value of the addr:city tag in UK addresses is usually the post town. Local authority names are not part of postal addresses. See osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Another mapper broke the access tagging on the bus loop in osm.org/changeset/159276247 - now fixed so that it's bus=designated + vehicle=private (per the road markings visible in the aerial imagery).

Thanks for adding the one way tag.

Hi,

On the bus-only bit of Kestrel Road, access="no, bus=yes" won't mean anything to data consumers and motor_vehicle=designated means that access is legally designated for ALL motor vehicles, not only for designated motor vehicles. Adding foot=no means that the intersecting paths cease to be routable, as does the part of it which has a sidewalk/pavement.

Repaired in osm.org/changeset/164235134

If you lose information about the number of lanes, turn lanes and a mandatory cycle lane, is it really a "correction"?

Repaired in osm.org/changeset/164234942

Done in osm.org/changeset/164195817

I was surprised that the adjacent crossings have zebra-like markings, but aren't zebra crossings.

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Your edit looks fine to me, thank you for improving the map.

It may take a couple of weeks for your changes to propagate to routing software, as their update frequencies vary.

Repaired in osm.org/changeset/148776942