@DaveF Interestingly, I can't get Rapid or iD to make the moronic suggestion changing Borough tube station to Elizabeth Line. This user's automated edits (accepting every editor-suggested tag "upgrade" without question) were bad enough. An armchair mapper in NZ deciding that some or all of LU has been rebranded is even more unacceptable. Hopefully all of their UK edits will soon be reverted by DWG.

Although no reply was made to this comment, it is obvious that it was read, from osm.org/changeset/165357243

Thank you for confirming that you read the comment on osm.org/changeset/165325288

I note that you have added branch=Foodhall to an M&S Food store. Branches of shops tend to be named after their location, not a previous mappers mis-remembering of the sub-brand.

osm.org/way/828606337

I see that you have changed "The Oasts Business Village" from office=administrative to office=government. The original tag isn't in the wiki, but replacing it in an automated edit with a value which is obviously wrong is unhelpful.

osm.org/node/5060905412

@spiregrain - their source is blindly accepting every tag "upgrade" suggested by Rapid - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-removal-of-crossing-markings-yes-tags-introduced-in-undiscussed-automated-edits/129614

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

According to Hertfordshire County Council's public right of way data and previous tagging, the full length of St Johns Lane east of the church is a public footpath. Regardless of other access or ownership considerations, public footpaths are tagged as foot=designated - they cannot be foot=private.

Has the legal status of Great Amwell FP 35 changed?

https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/herts/east-herts/great-amwell/

Thanks for connecting this.

If you're looking at other public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource helpful.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-rural/

Hi, just a quick question about this. The access tagging on the barrier node has bicycle=yes, but the note and changeset comment say that bikes are prohibited.

As far as I can tell from the traffic orders, only motor vehicles are prohibited in this LTN:
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4158081
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4452381

It might be worth adding traffic_intervention=modal_filter to the barrier node - see osm.wiki/Key:traffic_intervention

The other, more serious, problem with users adding short-term restrictions for roadworks as if they were permanent is when they don't bother to reverse it on reopening. Breaking motor vehicle routing unnecessarily for 6+ weeks was less than helpful.

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/165837061

See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-removal-of-crossing-markings-yes-tags-introduced-in-undiscussed-automated-edits/129614

@Numbergod - I've commented on several of your changesets where it's abundantly clear that you accepted Rapid's (incorrect) suggestion without question. That is an undiscussed automated/mechanical edit. You have not had the courtesy to reply to any of my changeset comments, or made any attempt to fix any of the errors which you introduced.

(Review requested)

Thanks for updating this. I've made a little tweak to the address tags.

(Sorry, I see you've already done that! I must wait until the coffee has rebooted my brain before looking at OSM.)

(Review requested)

If you wanted to add the log itself, you could add a node (point) where it is on the track with the tags barrier=log + check_date=2025-04-30 (or whatever date you visited). The links below might be useful.

osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dlog
osm.wiki/Key:check_date
osm.wiki/Key:obstacle#Fallen_tree

Thank you! I'm sure it happens to every OSM contributor, it certainly has to me. Happy mapping.

In the iD editor you're using, you need to split the line which represents the road.

This is from the old help forum:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/64918/how-do-i-split-a-roadway-where-the-name-changes-using-the-id-editor

Is there now a 24/7 prohibition on motor vehicles, or there signed time restrictions?

The proposals made in 2021 were (in OSM format)
no @ (Mo-Fr 17:30-23:00; Sa-Su 11:00-23:00)
osm.org/changeset/102015672

"Private Road" signs on an un-gated road do not mean private access, they mean that the road is not publicly maintained and that there is no right of way. In OSM, this is tagged with ownership=private. For roads signed "no through road", access=destination can be added. If through traffic is allowed, access=permissive is used.

Residents at the far end of Woodland Way would probably prefer it if deliveries, taxis and visitors can navigate beyond the junction with Higher Drive.

Updated in osm.org/changeset/165579462

The Spinney isn't gated, so it's private ownership rather than private access. Changed to ownership=private + access=destination