Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business. I've tweaked the tagging a little. I've also added The Angel Inn.

Good luck. I think you've done everything you reasonably can.

For different routing services, it can take a while before they "know" about updates. Although the default OSM Carto tiles update in minutes, it can be as long as several weeks, depending on how often they update. For example, when I use Komoot to plan running routes, it's typically a fortnight before changes are "live". With delivery drivers using satnavs, you also have to hope that they're receiving updates at all.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I don't think people trying to access Fox Talbot Close via Epping Close is due to people using routing services based on OSM data, as he roads aren't connected in OSM.

That said, I've made a few tweaks, including changing Fox Talbot Close to a (private) residential street - it's not just a service road or driveway. I've also split it at the gate, so the stub between Baker Street and the gate is routeable. Adding vehicle=private to the gated portion wasn't necessary, as the access=* tag applies to all transport modes.
osm.org/changeset/164716098

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

Thanks! Barking & Dagenham tends to get a little neglected.

A lot was added from GPS traces during the initial phase and Mapillary images I took in Oct 2019. Another user added some more recent imagery in Jun 2024, which might be of some use.

I'm not sure what "cordic routing" is, but this section of Elmfield Road is clearly signed as being for bicycles, buses and taxis. Please don't add incorrect data to the map.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.40281%7E0.018695&lvl=20.1&mo=om.1&pi=-7.3&style=x&dir=342.3

No problem. Looking at the history of the service road/driveway, it was added by someone who worked for Amazon Logistics. Presumably they felt it was useful, but probably should have tagged it as a driveway in the first place.

That would imply 24/7 access for all motor vehicles without exception, which isn't the case. The signage isn't great, as it's mostly via banned turn signs at junctions.

* Star Hill, not Star Lane!

"Making an absolute dog's breakfast of the junction by mapping for the renderer and treating lanes as if they were physically separated carriageways"

Please don't remove features which actually exist, just tag them correctly. Only features which do not exist should be deleted.

In this case, all you needed to do was add service=driveway to the highway=service which was already present.

Reinstated in osm.org/changeset/164654950

Please at least try to use access:* and contact:* tags correctly.

If I remember, I'll walk that way on the way back from the gym on Thursday .

Thanks - worth adding name:etymology:wikidata=Q7966315 here as well?

(added in wrong place, own error - reverted)

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thank you for adding the path and improving OpenStreetMap.

The horse=no access tag isn't strictly necessary on a highway=footway, but it's harmless.

Thanks for replying. There are a lot of mis-taggings for access in OSM, so it's not catastrophic, but hopefully we all want mapping to be as accurate as possible and hope that renderers and routers catch up.

What I know about actually implementing routing services would look lonely on the back of a postage stamp, so take this with a grain of salt ...

Ideally a more specific access tag should override a less specific one. For the case of buses, bus=* should take precedence over psv=*, which should in turn take precedence over motor_vehicle=*, vehicle=* and finally access=*

If you have access to street side imagery of the place you're checking (with an OSM compatible licence), there's a guide to interpreting UK traffic signs on the wiki.
osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hi,

Changing vehicle=no to motor_vehicle=no here may cause problems for other data consumers, as that's not what the signage means.

In this case, the signs visible in Bing's streetside imagery here ( osm.org/way/3528791 ) are the TSRGD diagram 953 variant "Route for use by buses and pedal cycles only". That translates to OSM access tagging as:
vehicle=no + bus=yes + bicycle=yes

Replacing vehicle=no with motor_vehicle=no implies carriage=yes. OSM-based routing for horse-drawn carriages may be somewhat niche (arguably, so is routing bus journeys after they have taken place), but we should tag to the best of our ability to reflect reality and shouldn't entertain changes which would potentially send more vulnerable road users like drivers of carriages along roads where they are prohibited.

I can see that you're trying to make a positive contribution to OSM and improve the experience of your fellow Busmiles.uk users, but you won't balance those two objectives if you ignore changeset comments.

I think you mean "breaking correct tagging in order to work with a defective router".

The TSRGD diagram 953 sign variant used here means "Route for use by buses and pedal cycles only".
This translates into OSM tagging as:
vehicle=no
bus=yes
bicycle=yes

Please read osm.wiki/Busmiles.uk

Thanks for fixing the mis-tagging of the pedestrian section of King Street as a living street. Some Busmiles users don't really care what they break, so long as the website's facility for snapping journeys to the map makes pretty pictures for them.