Footpath repaired in osm.org/changeset/103185778

How does adding a redundant access=no "clarify" anything? Changing the rendering of a footway (red dashes) and a bridleway (green dashes) to faint grey hardly makes things clearer.

Only the public footpath appears to be designated as a PRoW. What is your source for the parallel cycleway having changed to a (designated, if mis-tagged) public bridleway?
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/dartford-rural/

#DWG

Hi

A mapper with an unfortunate habit of adding redundant access=no tags to PRoWs (no effect on routing, but highly detrimental to rendering) has also changed footpaths to horse=no + bicycle=no in osm.org/changeset/103093508

I have no idea whether horses and bicycles are allowed on these footpaths, but as you appear to have local knowledge, please could you check them and reinstate as horse/bicycle=permissive if appropriate?

I have removed the access=no tags and added fixme tags in osm.org/changeset/103127934

What is your source for this change?

Also, as I have pointed out before, access=no + foot=yes on a highway=footway is not merely redundant, but causes the footway to be rendered as grey dashes rather than red. Please stop adding unnecessary access tags. #DWG

Hi, welcome to OSM.

I'm afraid that your first changeset obliterated much of Lambeth Palace, so I've reverted it in
osm.org/changeset/102951740

Thanks for clearing up my notes.

What is your source for this designation? Also, access=no is redundant for highway=bridleway. If it is a public bridleway, adding a your source in the changeset comment and designation=public_bridleway, prow_ref=* and foot=designated would help.

If you're not setting bicycle=no, you aren't doing what your changeset comment claims. If you have a highway=track with access=no and no other access tags, you're specifying no rights for anyone in any mode of transport.

With the exception of highway=path objects, that's not what you're doing.

A highway=footway does not have implicit access=yes, it has an implicit access of foot=yes (so needs an explicit foot=designated on a public footpath). All adding a redundant access=no tag does is cause the path to be rendered in grey. This is unhelpful.

Dragged node in St Joseph's Place, Glasgow repaired in osm.org/changeset/102424883

Comment should refer to Loughton FP 25

Were the deleted footways determined to be no longer extant by a ground/GPS survey?

Thanks for adding it!
PROW information added using https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/epping-forest/stanford-rivers/

Hi, welcome to OSM and many thanks for updating the new access from the Greenway.

You asked for a review, so I hope the following comments are useful. You did a much better job than I would have done when I was new to OSM. If you need any help, please feel free to ask.

In respect of the new link itself ( osm.org/way/853988878 ):
- It may need connecting to one of the service roads in the car park or hospital grounds, so that pedestrian routers can reach the hospital entrance(s) from The Greenway.
- The contents of the name=* tag should be moved to description=*, see osm.wiki/Key:name and osm.wiki/Key:description
- The oneway=yes tag should probably be deleted unless the route can only be used to enter the hospital grounds (routers will probably ignore it anyway).
- Where the link crosses the fence on the boundary, consider adding a barrier=gate node (assuming there is a gate here), or splitting the fence to create a gap.
- The construction=footway tag can be deleted, as it is no longer under construction.
- If only part of the link descends an incline, you could split the way and remove the incline=down tag from the flat part.
- Assuming the link is on hospital grounds, you could add the access tags bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive to it, plus any gates and new connecting ways.

Thanks for updating these PROWs.

Is access=no really necessary here? A highway=bridleway should already exclude motor vehicles and everything "above" horse. I suspect this tag is here because iD presents a plethora of often redundant access tags where the most appropriate value would be to delete them or leave them unset.

Also, designation=public_bridleway might be a better fit than designation=public_right_of_way.

You can also find right of way information including the prow_ref (in this case, "Bobbingworth BR 20") using this site
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/epping-forest/bobbingworth/

These wiki articles might be helpful to decide which of iD's suggestions can be ignored:
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#England_and_Wales

That's a pity, after all the care they took to work around it. I wonder what happened.

I wonder if this should be permissive rather than designated? There isn't any true public space in the private Canary Wharf estate.

No, my failure in reading comprehension, sorry.
It was the named cycleway/footway which threw me. I'm obviously caffeine deficient this lunchtime!

I'm not sure if it's an Osmose quirk, but the 30 mph speed limit in the LBWF part of Snaresbrook Road should still be current. As far as I can tell, The [unhelpfully named] Waltham Forest (20 M.P.H. And 40 M.P.H.) (No. 2) Speed Limit Order 2019 hasn't been revoked.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3234690

I'm sure I've run and walked through there a few times.

The "cyclists dismount" sign and cycle barrier are visible on Mapillary imagery, so I've added those. I have also disconnected the footways from the tunnels, as there were two shared nodes.

Some of the cycle routing problems may have been due to another mapper, who concentrates on long distance footpaths, changing footway/cycleway to path. Unfortunately, path doesn't have any default access assumptions unless access tags are added explicitly. I've reverted these to their previous types.

These changes may take a few weeks to work as expected in routing services like Komoot and Strava.

osm.org/changeset/101711056