...and removed some generic terraces too, so they can be mapped individually

*believe, rather

Hi, sorry for the late response. I wouldn't mind removing it for the time being as it's no longer actively proposed, on the off-chance the scheme does get rejuvenated it could just be added back I guess.

Based off a quick Google search, it does seem there's a renewed push to get just the Winterbourne Stoke bypass and Longbarrow junction built so maybe hold off on that for now?

Hi, sorry for the late response but it looks like a general workplace equipment supplier. There's probably better tagging for it as I wasn't quite sure, I tagged it as that on a whim while adding a few businesses in this area.

beat me to it!

And changed B4069 to construction, since repair works have started now

Hi, just wondering what your source is for this edit since most indicators say that the Scott Way name will continue all the way down to the roundabout? Superceding what was Elcombe Rd.

This doesn't seem right given that the new houses along the road are addressed as Scott Way, and having a look at plans, the roundabout by the old farm is referred to as connecting Scott Way and Wichel Way.

The latter (I'm awful at checking relation gaps), thanks for flagging

I've reverted your edits because the new signage in place already points to the link road, and declassifies the old route.

Additionally, the A338 / B4507 routing has been discussed before. Again, new signage points the A338 around Ormond Road.

Please also don't copy from OS as they could have easily just not updated yet. Original research >>> copying from other maps.

I'm not sure unfortunately as I haven't surveyed it on-ground, I don't know if there's one official route signposted through the criss-cross of tracks. Oxfordshire PRoW data https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/ seems to indicate the central track, that's probably the best shot we have for now but I'll open a note to see if someone can survey it.

Alright, looks like that was my bad then, that does explain why some of the PRoWs I was mapping weren't showing up on Rob's OSM Stuff. I agree it's probably the best PRoW tracking tool around at the moment.

I'll try and do a mass-edit at some point soon to add the missing tags to any PRoWs in the area which need them.

I've now re-tagged all of the private tracks (Airfield Lane included) so they should now clearly appear as greyed-out on the map, and all routing software using OSM should no longer allow cutting through them (they were only tagged as motor_vehicle=private before, not outright private).

This should help at least somewhat; while I agree that the universal solution to avoid confusion would be to hide the private tracks from the map and tag the public footpath track as highway=footway, unfortunately that doesn't fit with the current instructed provisions (osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom).

Lots of different third-party platforms use OSM as a base and many of those applications have different textures and rendering styles etc so while some would clearly indicate the private status, others wouldn't. As said above routing should work on all platforms though.

Although I see where you're coming from on not showing the track at all, as a contributor I can't really change the terminology of OSM alone. If you wanted to challenge it you could drop a suggestion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/.

Good luck with sorting the trespassing issues out, sorry I can't help more but hopefully this'll make a slight difference.

Hello Whatley Brothers.

Just as an fyi, I've changed a few of your edits so they're correctly tagged as per OSM guidelines. Rest assured OSM is reflecting the definitive map.

- You changed the track from Hackpen Lane to Meadows Path to a highway=footpath; I have changed this back to highway=track as it's a track acting as a public footpath, which is also adequately reflected in our tagging.

- You removed the highway tag altogether from the track from Burderop Farm Dairy to The Ridgeway; again it is a track so I have updated it with stronger access=private tags rather than removing the track altogether.

- You did the same as above with the track labeled Airfield Lane. Could you confirm the access status of this track? It's not a public footpath but it also isn't gated or has any 'private' signage.

Hi there.

The Neigh Bridge footpath removal was an error as I was rejigging a lot of path geometry around the park. I've re-added it.

I'm aware of the access provisions wiki page but I've always followed the advice that excess tags already implied by default shouldn't be added additionally; eg foot=designated is implied on highway=footpath so I've never bothered adding extra tags and usually instinctively remove them whenever I come across them.

I'm assuming you're saying the reverse is the case; I wasn't aware of this so I apologies for any issues this caused.

Rob's OSM Stuff is technically third-party though; is there anything on the wiki that clearly says already-implied tags should be added to PRoWs?

...plus a few edits on the Rushey Platt ind est which I forgot to save before

Hi Puxim.

As you've been told twice before, on-ground evidence points to the A338 now following Ormond Road. The source you're using (Oxfordshire highways) is probably outdated.

From aerial imagery, the road goes under the bridge. I've changed it to service because looking at Wiltshire council PROW GIS data the road isn't a public highway (unclassified), just looks like a service road which leads to the sewage works and carries the footpath along it.

thanks, probably got messed up while I was copy+pasting a load of building tags

Hi, FYI I've reverted your changset since the latest Bing imagery (around Aug 2022) doesn't show the junction changes which were made here in mid-late 2023.

I can't find any evidence that the A3026 has been re-routed so I've reverted Windmill Drive back to tertiary and Tidworth Road back to primary.

Then again, I haven't done a ground survey so I'll open a note requesting one.