hi, you've left the reference key on the now disused post box. I assume the reference key can only apply to a functioning post box and needs to be removed from the disused box?

Just to clarify... I don't mean tag hedge_bank should be used in England. I would argue that hedge_bank is a necessary tag, but definition needs discussion, and I'd argue it can be a sub tag for "garden hedges" and "field boundary" hedges. The separation of the two hedge types should not be based around hedgebank.

Concerned with this change, and with the creation of the wiki page and use of hedge_bank. "Hedgebank" is a an British English term referring to a type hedge built on top of bank of earth/ruble, commonly found in the southwest of England.

Strongly agree with need to create a tagging structure/method to separate "garden/small hedges" and large field hedges, and "hedge bank" but believe the solution needs to be discussed first.

I've had a look at the google imagery and the photo's from 2009 confirm that the crossing allows cycling. It does not conform to the requirements of a Toucan Crossing, but your mapping of the crossing as highway=cycleway is correct.

But.. the issue of the blue "cyclists dismount" and the legal meaning is still stands. The sign is not there to clarify the crossing is pedestrian only, and therefore because it is by itself MUST only advise of either low clearance, narrow width, or poor visibility. Even then it would not be an order to actually dismount. Neither of the three reasons appear to be is the case here. The sign appears to be illegally misused to advise cycling is not allowed, based on the common ignorance over the meaning of the sign.

The current mapping of the junction appears correct to me. But with regard to legislation, and practical and safe use by cyclists, it's an abomination.

Can you provide some evidence that the crossing is a Toucan Crossing? Google StreeView can not be used as a source, but images showing that crossing are dated October 2021 and show a pedestrian crossing (outdated Pelican Crossing)

Furthermore, Warrington Council provides a cycle map that shows the cycle track ends at the crossing. From experience I believe the cycle track simply ending at this likely busy junction is leading to cyclists using the pedestrian crossing before joining the road. The "cyclists dismount" sign use is therefore available to the council to clarify the pedestrian only crossing. The sign has been placed on the wrong side of the pedestrian crossing. There is no need to map this "cyclists dismount" sign since as it's function to clarify the crossing is pedestrian is mapped in OSM with highway=footway & a pedestrian crossing node.

There appears to be confusion here regarding the use in the UK of the blue rectangular "Cyclists Dismount" sign. Firstly, the sign is information, and by itself not a command or prohibition. Use is defined in Traffic Signs Manual (ch 3).

By itself, and along a cycle route the sign MUST only be used for the following three reasons. To advise that the Local Authority believes that for an unspecified short distance, cycling may be dangerous due to either (1) Low Headroom (eg subway, (2) reduced width (eg narrow bridge), (3) restricted visibility (eg Don't know of examples).

*To Repeat* The sign is not an order, and the rider may still continue riding, but it would be there own fault if they had an accident due to one of the three reasons listed. In these situations OSM should use tags to show low headroom, or width. Don't think we have tag for visibility.

The sign can further be used in only two other situations. To create increased awareness that cycling is illegal at two situation, (1) at a pedestrian only crossing (usually joining a cycle route), and (2) at the entrance to a pedestrian only zone. For OSM this would be indicated by footways, or highway=pedestrian, which by default are bicycle=no.

British blue "cyclists dismount" signs MUST NOT be used for any other reason. It would be unlawful. They must not be used to show the end of cycleway. They must not used to suggest cyclists dismount at difficult cycling situations (eg cattle grids). But Local Authorities do misuse this sign, and where it is miscued, it has no meaning. It should reported to the appropriate authority for removal.

Furthermore the OSM bicycle=dismount tag, does not have the intended use created by the British blue "cyclists dismount" sign.

For this specific case it appears to case to increase aware that the crossing is a pedestrian crossing, so you must not cycle across it. Dealt with by mapping the crossing as (I assume) a Puffin Crossing,

Hi, I've reverted this change in changeset/117400173. Your change deleted an address, and a business, that are still present.

I assume this was blunder linked to you adding another business with the name Homeworx.

Thankyou. The tagging is wrong, and a blunder. I've have deleted the tag in a changeset which should show in your given way history link

I should add that, that now I'm looking at it, the centre of Exeter is proper complex mess of pedestrian areas which could do with some changes.

Hi sec147. I made a change and reverted your change to the pedestrian area you altered here. Mapping as highway=pedestrian & area=yes, is how the area locally have always been mapped and is the dominant style locally and nationally. There is some dispute about the tagging, but area=yes, is massively preferred, at least, in the UK.

I made a mistake in previous comment. I should have stated I would have no issue with the tag being changed to vehicle=no

But now thinking about it that would allow horse access, which I assume would be prohibited

The carriageway has a prohibition limiting access to only buses. Any pedal cycle moving past the signs (either end of road) on the carriageway would be committing an offence. Correctly stating that cycle tracks are not "mandatory", does not change the prohibition affecting the carriageway.

Pedestrian access along the carriageway is not prohibited by the sign, but I followed tagging guidance from the wiki here (arguably incorrectly). It is inconsistent with how I've tagged other limited access carriageways and I would have no issue with access tagging being changed to motor_vehicle=no.

Maybe this is something we should have discussed on the talk_UK mailing list? I'm surprised by your opinions regarding cycle access and would like to hear other views.

Hi, I've assumed the edit was made with with presumption that the shared route cycleway had not been mapped as a separate way. The "shared route" cycle track has been mapped in OSM as seperate way. Below is a link to an image I captured in August 2021

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZUyDhG2iJyZootBZ7

I've changed the access to access=no , changeset/113282900

Not sure sure of what you mean "by definition", what definition are you referring to? Is this something in the OSM wiki, or mailing lists?

Last time I was there the "cycle track" and adjacent roads are separate ways.

Has there been a change to highways layout? Or has there been a change to signs/ what signs did you see there?

Hi, you've made a significant change to access but have not provided a source. Just want to confirm you meant the changes you made.

Thanks, should have come back to this by now, but had to visit family so I wont remap it until the weekend. Generally don't map farmland use, but when I do I follow the style of mapping you suggest. Thanks for the advice.

This massive multipolygon was used to map most open land between Woodbury Common and the River Otter as farmland. Had to make some edits that impacted on it, but found it frustratingly difficult due to size. Since most of land is pasture (from some reason called meadow in OSM) and the multipolygon was arguably unworkably large, I've deleted it. I'll come back on and add several smaller areas, but using a different landuse tag.

Hi, You have not provided a source for this changeset. Can you let me know the source?

Hi, There are a few problems with this changeset. You've made changes which have a major impact without a changeset explanation or a source. Many of the change in this changeset can not be made without some sort of "on ground" data. So your changeset, is missing a source for the changes, and the changeset comment should state or help with understanding why the changes were made.

You removed the one-way from "Iron Bridge" way, without source or explanation. You changed the maxweight tag without a source.What was your source for these two changes? It should be stated or at least implied in the changeset.

I was confident you'd made a mistake with your edit, but with no source and only a brief changeset comment, you reduced the ability to spot and fix the mistake.

Please see the following guide osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments.

You've also made major changes around the bus station area without source or explanation.

I've fixed the Iron Bridge edit, and will check and fix the edits around the Bus Station later.

I'd prefer, cycleway:left=track, so could you please delete the separate cycleway.

Regarding my side road test. I feel Track in practice acts as a protected cycle lane within the carriageway (road) and is treated as engaging with sides roads as part of the main road. If you cycling forward and a side road is to your left, it remains always to your left as track, so you can simply cycle past the side road.

In practice, in the UK, nearly all "pavement" or road side cycle ways, function separate from the road. If your cycling forward and there is the previously described side road coming up, you have to treat the side road as if your crossing it, rather than passing it. You're generally expected to give way. In the situations where the cycleway has priority, the cycleways general kink in a bit with "give way" markings either side of cycleway on the side road (Mapillary example - https://bit.ly/3kc4uTr ) A separate cycleway, therefore generally works better in the UK because cycle ways normally have a seperate route at junctions

This a subject I had to give a lot of thought to last summer. Last summer a mapper in Exeter converted nearly every road side cycleway to track. Arguing it improved the database and citing the 2019 SotM talk "Is the OSM data model creaking?" I'd argued that track should almost never be used, because routing assumed you were part of the main road, while in practice nearly every single Exeter cycleway functions separate from the road, especially at junctions. The debate appeared to end after the mapper found this relevant question. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/73255/cyclewaytrack-versus-separately-mapping

I still had to spend a few weeks restoring all of the Exeter's cycleways. So it feels bizarre to end up supporting a track. But the support only applies to this way for specific reasons.