It's still open for freight, isn't it? The Network Rail press release[^1], the Oxford Clarion[^2], and BBC Oxfordshire[^3] all say it's "currently open for freight".

IDK if it can be upgraded to passenger standards while being kept open for freight, but it is still in use[^4]. I think that means it's not under construction at present.

[1]: https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/major-boost-for-oxford-as-cowley-rail-line-to-reopen-for-passengers-after-more-than-60-years

[^2]: https://oxfordclarion.uk/cowley-branch-line-reopening-gets-the-go-ahead/

[^3]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgql954g07do

[^4]: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:MORRMAT/2025-10-31/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Changesets should ideally be kept small and localized, please! They're much more informative and less globally visible if you do that.

This change combines parking in Switzerland with garages in Saskatchewan, Canada, so it would have been better as two separate changes.

Maybe it was just pending changes needing to be saved fully between contributions? Vespucci can be a pain with that: I always try to use the "clear and download fresh" button when starting in a new area, but I wish it reminded me to do it.

Makes sense. I'm not fond of physically_present=no by itself.

The two stops vary in terms of gone-ness, and I was fighting a bit with StreetComplete and Vespucci at the time. I'll update as needed.

Hoping Relatify and https://osm-naptan.andrewtrevena.co.uk/bus-stops/south-east/oxfordshire (when it's working) understand proper OSM lifecycle tags.

Probably a good idea. It's the ref that appears on route maps, and the name's almost internal. Plus, it sorts better in lists :)

Maybe it's better capitalised as "Bus Airline REF: Wherever → Somewhere Else" though?

I think Wikipedia would probably capitalise it as "The Airline" or just "Airline" if they had a page for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks. They suggest looking at independent texts to gather consensus for lowercase brands. Looking around, the Oxford Mail doesn't include the definite article when talking about the route: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19302677.oxford-bus-companys-airline-service-steps-frequency-travellers/

* so that it sorts together with the Lion 4

OK if I grab the 35 to work on?

No problem, will do.

I always have to re-read the Buses page on the wiki before I start a block of bus route work.

Thanks for this!

OK for me to tag it with public_transport:version=2 yet? (if you're hands-off…)

Reason: I have a saved query for spotting old routes in need of modernising: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1KiC , and it's pinging on these.

Also, once they're tagged with the appropriate version, GeoFabrik OSM Inspector can see them, and that tool can highlight severed routes (top-left dropdown, Public Transport - Routes)

Thanks for the tip.

I find notes a little more visible on my phone and other mapping. I've added one as a reminder for myself and others in the area: note/4812745

footway=link is appropriate for routing, but it also tends to be rendered.

footway=link

It's hard to map this kind of long, walkable traffic island / mid-road footway refuge prettily, and in a manner that doesn't create weird dogleg routes. Most routing engines don't assume assume magical teleporting is possible.

Whoops, thanks for that. Had to realign some of that fiddly garden stuff.

Could these have been done as three smaller changesets? The boundary box covers nearly half of Europe.

Also the names of the cafe and pottery at Loch Ness are wrong, according to what's probably their website: https://www.lochnessclayworks.co.uk/the-highland-potter/ - can you have a look at receipts or whatever sources you're going from again please?

Before you do that, I think me and @wongataa stumbled on an ambiguity on the wiki page(s) themselves - my little changes crossed into theirs: changeset/166347580

There's some disagreement in what's right for UK tagging, and an ambiguity on the wiki page we ought to resolve. This place is pretty terrible for discussions, so it might be worth discussing it on the community forum. I'll follow up to the thread I started there, and try to gather some consensus:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/uk-consensus-on-junction-circular-is-there-any/130196

I started an open-ended consensus feeler thread on Community yesterday but didn't drop a link here. Sorry about that, here it is: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/uk-consensus-on-junction-circular-is-there-any/130196 It might be more productive to get this discussion out of change nags and onto there. Can we continue the discussion there?

I think there's an ambiguity in reality-vs.-wiki-vs.-database we need to address a bit more openly.

----------------------

I think the wiki text you cited on wiki:Tag:junction=roundabout needs fixing or removing[1], now that junction=circular exists. It contradicts the bit at the top of the same page that states:

> The tag junction=roundabout is used only on road intersections where traffic on the roundabout has right of way.
> That is, the roundabout itself should be ***free from all intersection controls including traffic signals, stop signs or stop markings, give-way (or yield) signs or give-way markings.***

(my highlighting)

It doesn't matter what we call a thing, it ought to converge to what the wiki page says for something this established[2]. And that's sadly contradictory in the current revision.

[1] the text you cite predates the junction=circular tag:

osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Tag:junction%3Droundabout&diff=prev&oldid=872524

Me I think there should just be one junction=round_thing tag *and* some namespaced attributes to cover overall RoW. But that ship has sailed a long time ago.

[2] … although wiki page adjustments to approach reality and database content are valid too, and part of the process

I think we disagree here.

Tagging them as junction=circular also doesn't stop them from being "roundabouts" in the UK sense either, and nor does it make them "traffic circles" or any other term used locally. The two OSM tags have well-defined and different meanings, independent (we hope) of language and place. Other countries will have different words and shadings of meaning too, but this definition is OSM's.

I don't think we can just locally and individually insist on any definitions other than the agreed ones in the wiki really, not for something as well established as these tags. These definitions and the new distinction between them are well established OSM practice for nearly 9 years now, whether we like the tags or not:

- junction=circular (since Nov 2016, distinction discussed in the tagging mailing list)
- junction=roundabout (documented since Feb 2007)

If they have traffic signals and stop lines on the circulating way, you do not have complete, unrestricted right of way whilst on them. Therefore they are tagged as junction=circular, whether or not that's also a term for something local to the UK that's not a standardised roundabout.

Did you discuss these changes with anyone else?

How are you selecting candidates for these changes, and applying the edits?

Actually, more than "something I want to do". Established local convention in the Oxford area, at least.

Hi there, again. Was this change discussed somewhere in a way that I'm not aware of?

I've checked the last couple of months of Talk-GB, Talk-gb-westmidlands, and in community.openstreetmap.org, and I can't find anything to suggest consensus this way. Something more local, or something I've missed?

It's the exact opposite of something I want to do in my area, further south, and directly opposite to what the wiki says, so please let us know.

Hi there, wongataa!

Please can you clarify why you did this? Is there a local consensus I'm not familiar with? At least some of those are signalized, literal stop lines on the circulating way, and I assume you know the argument against using highway=roundabout for those already.

Amusingly, I've been around the area fixing things in the other direction just hours after this changeset, and it's clipped this box. I don't want to tread on any local conventions, and edit wars are bad, so how shall we resolve this?

Hi EBattman, and thanks for the reply.

tourism=* is certainly the way to go for this tower. I've added tags for two tourist features, since they're slightly different in nature, and different features in OSM should get distinct objects

1. the viewing platform: node/12819165592

2. the historic building itself: way/311139684

Don't rely on the node/way IDs too much, since they might be replaced with new objects. If you're freshly pulling tourism=* on a reasonable regular basis though, you're good to go, no matter how we divide up the map features

Updated to remove the PoW tagging, and I'm trying to accommodate the most common name in name=* too, if that's what changeset/165938610 is about.