Hi! I now have the official answer from West Sussex Highways:

"""
Enquiry ref: 17713985 - Hastings Primary Road Network

Thank you for contacting us about the classification of Havelock Road and Harold Place, Hastings.

Havelock Road & Harold Place are part of the A21 but do not form part of the Primary Road Network (PRN) and therefore the A21 and A259 PRN do not meet.
"""

Given the above, my intention is to remove highway=trunk from Havelock Road and Harold Place. Since I don't have a definitive statement about Cornwallis Terrace, I plan on leaving that as highway=trunk.

On the oneway issue - exactly the same situation occurs in Brighton, where North Street is bus/taxi/bicycle only westbound, but not restricted eastbound. The tags I added oneway=yes, oneway:bicycle=no, oneway:bus=no, oneway:taxi=no are consistent with that usage.

Recording it solely as access restrictions makes the information hidden to visual users of the map (competent routers may get it correct, but just viewing any render of the map will give the incorrect information.

I disagree with this. Trunk roads are defined in OSM as "Note that highway=* distinguishes roads by function and importance rather by their physical characteristic and legal classification" highway=*

Havelock Road is not an OSM trunk road as it cannot be used southbound by most motor vehicles. Thus it does not fulfil the function and importance test of highway=trunk. (It may or may not legally be a trunk road, but that is not of consequence to OSM). Northbound there is more of an argument, but there are no road signs routing London-bound drivers up Havelock Road. (The signposted route from the coast is via Albert Road, Queens Road and St.Helens Road)

Separately, and as supporting evidence, the road has no green signs at either end.

Entirely removing the oneway restriction tags is also incorrect, as OSM now does not record the actual restrictions on the road.

This is obviously a weird case, but I don't believe we do anyone any favours by letting the map suggest that drivers from London to the coast should go via Havelock Road.

FWIW, there is a third option, which is to mark the route via Devonshire Road, South Terrace, Queens Road and Albert Road as highway=trunk for southbound traffic which is the signposted (non green-sign) route to Folkestone. I personally think that is worse than simply terminating the trunk road at the Priory Street loop as I did.

Feel free to discuss on talk-gb mailing list

As an example of the sidewalk detail needed, see the junction of Banks Road and Shore Road. The pedestrian router can't find a route along the east side of Banks Road because there is no pedestrian crossing of Short Road at the end. In cases like this a pedestrian crossing has to be added even if there isn't really one on the ground (I would probably mark it as highway=crossing, crossing=unmarked, kerb=normal, informal=yes)

Happy mapping!

Hi! Happy to see your edits in Poole. Just wanted to check that you are aware of the OSM UK Cadastral parcels image layer? It shows property boundaries and is the golden source for aligbnment. Using that I've been using an alignment of (-1.19, -1.19) based off the Lilliput area.

Also, there tends to be a reluctance in OSM to add pavements/sidewalks on minor residential roads. This is because on minor residential roads you tend to be able to cross the road anywhere, and adding a separate sidewalk makes pedestrian routing troublesome. I generally add sidewalks only to main roads, and ensure that they always tie in with proper crossing points at each junction - and I'm very happy to see most of yours do that. But I would encourage you to consider whether sidewalks on minor residential roads are adding value. Thanks!

Should be fixed now ;-)

Hi! It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide more info in your changeset comment.
thanks

Removed in changeset/127987775

Have you got a specific node/way? It won't have been something I added, just something I edited

Looking at it again today, I would definitely call that lowered, not flush. Flush implies that no edge can be felt, but there is very definitely a kerbstone here, even if the actual drop is tiny.

The East side. I changed this as the OSM way runs North, thus the cycle lane is on the right

I've rechecked the photo and the post box in Parc Derwen is definitely marked as CF35 13. I'll try and check the other location sometime, but it won't be rapid. Thanks

Fixed now, thanks
Stephen

This change doesn't conform with the wiki. crossing=* A pedestrian crossing where the controlling aspect is traffic signals should be crossing=traffic_signals. crossing=marked is explicit - "Duplicate of crossing=uncontrolled, i.e. a crossing with road markings, but no traffic lights.". (I can appreciate there is a debate around whether the status quo is for crossing the best tagging that can be achieved, but this change makes things worse because it removes the traffic signals aspect entirely.)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104576641

Thanks. (3.93,-2.23) is from Wimbledon Chase, but I've been happy with it so far from New Malden to Wimbledon. My one is "Cadastral at Wimbledon Chase" in the offset database. I should probably deprecate my old ones too.

Hi! I noticed that there are two users working on Plough Lane at the moment. I'm the mapper who has added many buildings and addresses in Raynes Park. It would be great if you can both use the same image offset from Bing. I'm recommending an offset of (3.93,-2.23) - https://blog.mapbox.com/better-openstreetmap-data-with-ids-new-imagery-offset-tool-ff1906ef6c53 (and recommended the same to sblondon, the other local mapper) Hope that helps, thanks, Stephen
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102741912

Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I'm the mapper who has added many buildings and addresses in this area. FYI, the Bing images are slightly in the wrong place in our area. You need to use an offset of (3.93,-2.23) - https://blog.mapbox.com/better-openstreetmap-data-with-ids-new-imagery-offset-tool-ff1906ef6c53 . Unfortunately, with the online iD editor you have to enter the offset every time you make any offsets (if you use JOSM editor it can be automated). Hope that helps, thanks, Stephen
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102694822

Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I'm the mapper who has added many buildings and addresses in this area. As you have no doubt found, adding a rectangular building is tricky in the online iD editor. One thing you might want to consider is using the JOSM editor - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ - which provides tools for making buildings rectangular (although it takes a little time to learn how to use it). In addition, the Bing images which you are copying from are slightly in the wrong place in our area. You need to use an offset of (3.93,-2.23) - https://blog.mapbox.com/better-openstreetmap-data-with-ids-new-imagery-offset-tool-ff1906ef6c53 Hope that helps, Stephen
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102691415

Hi! Thanks for contributing. When using the iD editor you have to add an offset to Bing maps of (3.95,-2.22) in this area. This is to adjust Bing to meet the "correct" alignment of the Cadastral data - https://osmuk.org/cadastral-parcels/ Let me know if anything is unclear
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102341545

Hi! Thanks for adding the houses. I recently aligned the roads in this area to the new Cadastral imagery data. The Cadastral data is considered to be the "correct" alignment in GB - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-March/026352.html You can access the cadastral data in iD as a layer, and you can align the Bing images using (3.36,-2.54).