Hi, how come you deleted Mason Street's crossing over the busway (way/1025891018)?

Speed limits on footways?

https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway/m69/10 and https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Whetstone_Interchange

A lot of junctions have arguably silly names, the Avonmouth Interchange comes to mind which is notable for not being connected to anything, as well as not being in Avonmouth. I think the only criteria really is just that its somewhere vaguely nearby and not closer to another junction.

Can't remember my exact thought process but I'm guessing either it already crossed the railway before I added it as a tunnel or I just figured it went the whole way to the towpath, running parallel to the brook. Not sure, I'll have a look at specifically ground surveying it

Also reclassified roundabout interchange, as all trunk through-routes are covered by the sliproads to the north

Also fixed footpath/track meeting point with Gigg Lane and gate

+ extended pavement, added turning lane

^^^Changed track to path + service road based on access

Good to know, I'll look into that

+ added address to Folly Lane Medical Centre

>it's an abomination
Agreed. Though not unprecedented from Warrington Borough Council.

I still believe, considering it's a pavement, it should feature a dismount tag and link back to Midland Way at the dropped kerb, which conforms to the legal cyclability and is far more practical (less deadly) than joining the A57 within the traffic light junction.

^^If the local authorities have specifically said it's OK to cycle there then there is room for nuance but otherwise I don't think =yes is appropriate

Yes I agree it's an inevitability on a road with such a large amount of traffic. However this is just advice and technically speaking it would be incorrect to route them on the pavement, at least in so far as pedalling, as precedent has been set that a bicycle is considered a carriage and therefore can't legally use pavements unless otherwise designated. Doesn't mean I will follow the law or that cyclists should, or that it's enforced. But as far as OSM tagging goes, the legality must be taken into consideration.

It may be safer and more practical and the laws may be unenforced but the reason why will have been that they're puffin crossings linking pavements together, which you aren't supposed to cycle across. If for the sake of routing you'd put bicycle=dismount, I would support that a reasonable middle ground. Bicycle=yes is incorrect though as it implies a legal right of way for bicycles which sadly UK law doesn't support.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3913669,-2.598002,3a,75y,243.56h,81.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spG01QobJo_xxrWVy3G7jbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not using this as a source but I can confirm its accuracy as of when I was last there. What appear to be pelican crossings are really pelican-style toucan crossings, going East-West.

The sign is situated at the end of the toucan crossing facing towards the crossing. This plus the dropped kerb directly linking the pavement to the cycle lane Westbound along Midland Way suggests to me that bicycle=dismount on the pavement, and a small way to link it to the road is the obvious choice as clearly this is where the council intended cyclists to go. The practicality of actually dismounting and following the law is another matter entirely, but better that than join the road from the toucan crossing within the junction imo.

I've never seen motorways tagged with access=no either, that's not common or standard practice.

Hi! Welcome to OSM.

It appears you've added access=no to some of the highway across these two junctions. This paired with motor_vehicle=yes isn't standard tagging practice on OSM; specific restrictions like bicycle=no, horse=no, foot=no are generally preferred.

Access=no is typically used in cases such as long-term road closures or construction.

Cheers, and happy mapping :)

Massive-looking edit only because of adding a point to the ship canal

^^It's much safer than joining within the junction, past a traffic light