I'd love to say "wow, that takes me back" but I don't even remember visiting there! I was a very inexperienced mapper back then... I think I most likely intended to map "pub with a beer garden". Please feel free to update it to match that, or just remove the tourism=picnic_site. Cheers

Done, cheers!

This one here: osm.org/way/653988794

Hi, when I've walked this footpath it definitely goes on the south side of that shed building, there's a narrow path with gates at either side.

I agree that the routers are do not all handle areas the same, but I don't think justifies creating extra ways that don't exist on the ground (and it certainly looks better with them removed). However, I don't feel so strongly about it so if you wish, I will revert the change.

I can't guarantee all, but some routers work with pedestrian areas! The ways I deleted don't actually exist on the ground, and it's not recommended to map purely for the renderer/router.

Fair enough! Have redone the tagging with the more explicit motor_vehicle=no and added the bollards.

I considered doing it like that but didn't go with that approach because they are not actually under construction, because it might discourage routers from using those routes for pedestrian/cycle routing when this is actually possible, and because it will be very easy to put right once the construction is complete.

I had another look this morning; the one ways have not been explicitly suspended but lodge street is closed halfway up and trenchard street (east end) is 'road closed, access only'

Good point - will go and have another look to check

I've now sorted this out (osm.org/changeset/67143336) by getting rid of the fake oneway section and tagging the no entry as a restriction relation.

This edit extended further than I expected (was using the street complete app). I'll have another look at it tomorrow.

Fair enough, although only short sections are actually guided. It's certainly not a highway=residential anyway!

The highway=construction between the M5 junction and highwood lane looks odd, was this intended?

It caught my eye originally because some of the split roads lacked name tags.

This is a very simple mini roundabout with no split roads or proper islands, so I felt it was more accurately mapped like this.

Not sure exactly what the differences between triangulation,fixed_point or benchmark are! Here's a couple of photos of the concrete pillar from when I surveyed it last year: https://goo.gl/photos/UNGpNuy3LUAc8Zcv8 and https://goo.gl/photos/PEoEjC1hNumkykGu6

In this case I got the first ref directly from the timetable poster (see https://goo.gl/photos/HqAntjEF5nEC9rdX7). The ref on the stop on the other side was only in short form, but I tried converting it to the long form (they're only 1 digit separate) and found that it appeared to be correct.
The long ref appears to be an 'Atco Code' which forms part of the NaPTAN dataset - see osm.wiki/NaPTAN

I did wonder about the refs as well. If you google the longer ref (e.g. 639007452) you get a lot of results for the specific bus stop, so it seems correct. I suspect the first part of the longer ref is a type of area code, and the second part is the stop specific code. I think the shorter code that appears on the sign is just an abbreviated version of the long one.

Thanks! :)

Hi, the roads that you have connected in this changeset are actually separated by a 6ft drop and a wall (already mapped). You cannot navigate between them. Please can you revert this change and be more careful while remote mapping. Thanks!