Hi, thanks for updating OSM.

You could tag it as cuisine=italian (see osm.wiki/Key:cuisine ).

Salvino appears to be mapped as both a node ( osm.org/node/4501109958 ) and an area ( osm.org/way/864126692 ). If you need help merging those, please let me know.

No problem. Many thanks.

What do you mean "not fixed"? If the objects still exist, as seems likely, please don't delete them from OSM.

Hi, you asked for a review of your edit. It looks fine to me, thanks for updating the map.

The gate only really needs the access=private tag, as it covers all transport modes, but there's no need to change it. The iD editor has an unfortunate way of prompting for access values which aren't really necessary or appropriate unless there's an exception to the default for that type of highway or the access=* tag used.

I can understand that, as I tend to map more pedestrian than cycling infrastructure. Something to render a dedicated cycle track would help, but we're hindered in the UK by almost never being able to truthfully tag a cycleway as foot=no. There doesn't really seem an appropriate value of cycleway=* to cover it.

I've reverted this changeset in osm.org/changeset/114262230

Perhaps the following might work for QEOP:

1) Named ways >=3m wide:
highway=pedestrian + motor_vehicle=private + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive + segregated=no

2) Ways <3m wide:
highway=footway + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive + segregated=no

3) Ways 3m wide, unless a dead end for cyclists:
highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=private + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive + segregated=no

Last year someone changed the whole lot to footway due to a misguided idea about pedestrian priority (see osm.org/changeset/89374914 ), so this is part of a gradual return to the status quo ante.

In general, almost every path in QEOP appears to be a permissive shared cycleway, most of which are 3m or more wide (and should probably also be tagged with motor_vehicle=private as they are used as such by service and event vehicles). From a routing or other data consumer's point of view, it doesn't matter which value is used.

Preferring cycleway could certainly be accused of tagging for the OSM Carto renderer, but I would argue that it's also compatible with the use described in
osm.wiki/Duck_tagging

If you're particularly unhappy with it, I'm happy to revert and just keep the "main" paths as highway=cycleway|pedestrian + segregate=no + foot=permissive + bicycle=permissive + motor_vehicle=private

After sharing Here East's tweet, I found an LB Hackney announcement about Gainsborough Bridge, which states that it "opened to pedestrians and cyclists", so I think changing it to highway=cycleway seems justified.

https://news.hackney.gov.uk/council-and-lldc-drive-sustainable-transport-improvements-in-hackney-wick/

Thanks!

Accidental upload of raw FHRS data for Gosport deleted in osm.org/changeset/112644452

Presumably these four shops have closed permanently, is the building being redeveloped?

If it's a ground-level tunnel, it would probably be better to change it to tunnel=building_passage and delete the layer=1 tag.
osm.wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage

For the Komoot user who appears to have been the source of the complaint, Komoot appears to have used the highway=path ways only for mountain bike routing.

Had the user chosen bike touring, road cycling, or even gravel riding, then Komoot would have selected legal routes.

@DaveF it transpires that the Komoot route referred to in the associated osm.org/note/2831988 has mountain biking as the route type...

As it's a highway=path object, might either changing it to highway=footway, or using vehicle=no instead of just bicycle=no might be better? (Or just stop treating highway=path as a valid route for anything other than foot, unless explicitly allowed.)

Hi Andy,

I should have spotted that when I extended the footway. It definitely doesn't go up there - I've walked and run most of the Capital Ring.

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/111389139

Hi,

Farnhurst Bridge ( osm.org/way/676136188 ) recently came up on a discussion about named "streets" which are unreachable and cannot be completed by users of CityStrides.

As it does not appear to connect to any other highway objects, would you have any objection to me changing it from highway=track -> man_made=bridge?

No problem. I can revert it if you'd like, but I've no idea how to do it in iD. From the wiki, it looks like you can map a way as natural=tree_row while retaining the original natural=tree nodes.
osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree_row

What was the reason for this edit?
Some of the individual trees had species information sourced from GLA/LB Southwark open data, which is lost by merging them into.

When you added your spam POI (gamblizard isn't a place of worship, or indeed in Bloomsbury Square Gardens), you also deleted a section of road, with potentially serious effects on routing.

Fully reverted in osm.org/changeset/109519790

Thanks for updating this. It can sometimes be worth mapping cycle barriers and the positions of the cycling prohibited traffic signs as well. They're not actually necessary, as highway=footway without bicycle=yes|permissive|designated should stop routers treating it as being usable for cyclists, but can be useful for other mappers.

For cycle barriers, place a node on the way tagged with barrier=cycle_barrier + bicycle=no on the footway.
osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dcycle_barrier

For a statutory cycling prohibited sign, place a node on the way with traffic_sign=GB:951 + bicycle=no
osm.wiki/Key:traffic_sign
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made