"For dedicated, separate bus tracks, use highway=service, access=no, psv=designated (or psv=yes)." osm.wiki/Buses I suspect not all routers check motor_vehicle.

Link to discussion on talk_gb. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-September/025187.html

Thats a copy and paste bug, thanks for catching it. Of course we need all the normal tags, I'm trying out ways of capturing additional higher level information that OSM is missing. (And there is no requirement for tags to be approved in OSM)

A modal filter is a scheme where the road is deliberately closed to motor vehicles, but allowing walking and cycling. There are hundreds of there across London just for starters. The aim of the tag is to enable them to be easily found in research and such-like. There is no existing tag AFAIK for this at the higher level, existing tags are too low level. Modal filters might be highway=cycleway or highway=footway or highway=service or highway=residential, and they might or might not have a barrier added to OSM, and the barrier might be of various kinds. In other words, these are hard to find without specific tagging, and they do represent something physical on the ground. I'm not 100% happy with modal_filter=yes, and may try to come up with something more flexible xxx=modal_filter, so xxx=school_street could be added too.

Hi! FWIW, I choose my land use areas in Raynes Park as follows: Residential areas don't include tertiary or greater roads, yet residential areas do include residential roads. I put the boundary of the area at the front wall of the house, or slightly into the pavement if the house is directly on the pavement, ie. main roads and their pavements are not part of any landuse area. Where this results in a large residential area, I may break it down, but generally not. OSM has no hard and fast rules on this, but I thought it would be useful to say what I do in the neighbouring area.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90888737

Thanks for adding to the map in KMS!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89862430

FYI, those roads are not surface ways. They are ramps up and down to the parking entrances at the north end, and these two ways have retaining walls below ground level of increasing height. Now, as it happens, the service road for deliveries is at layer 1, so removing layer=-1 has no effect, but I did want to note the true design of the road system here is not "surface ways".
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89740728

Yes, they should be undone really. It is generally up to the router software to decide about U turns. Occasionally one gets added where not signed and routers are making mistakes (such as where the way has been split and it looks more like a roundabout to the software). But OSM can't realistically have no U turn relations on every corner like this. Thanks

Hi there! Is there some evidence on the ground for these changes? ie. a physical no U turn sign? Thanks
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89674289

Hi! I note that you are using Bing imagery and the iD editor. Unfortunately, the lovely new Bing imagery is inconsistent with previous imagery and also with reality. A such, realigning roads like this is tending to make things worse not better wrt the real world. In the area New Malden / Wimbledon / Morden I'm encouraging mappers to use an offset of (3.43,-1.03) which can be manually set in the iD editor. If you were to use JOSM, the offset can be applied more automatically. Thanks
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551

Alignments seem to agree now, thanks! BTW, the traffic calming is a "hump" not a "bump" in the Dukes Avenue area. See traffic_calming=* for the difference. FYI, I've mostly surveyed and will edit east of the High Street / Coombe Road up to Cambridge Avenue
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88458172

I'm using offset (3.43,-1.03) which you can enter in iD via the background (B) settings. However, I'm not sure that iD remembers the offset the next time you edit. With JSOM it is all pretty automatic: https://blog.mapbox.com/better-openstreetmap-data-with-ids-new-imagery-offset-tool-ff1906ef6c53

Hi! We're editing in the same area, so I wanted to say hi. I'm currently using the new Bing imagery as a base, but I've got an offset in JOSM based on Esri and GPS data which also seems to align with osmcha. I don't think you are using that offset in your editor so things will get painful with each of us realigning things. It looks like your imagery is 4-5m out from mine looking at this changeset and Coombe Road for example. Can we agree on the right offset/imagery?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88419867

Looks good. If you want rectangular buildings you probably need to learn how to use JOSM, but thats not necessary if only adding a couple of houses. You might consider adding building:levels=2 to give an indication of the number of floors.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87783061

I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My understanding is that the default for a footway is foot=designated, but designated requires an explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon Common do not have an explicit sign, but are legally accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps osmose is wrong.

Using building:part requires drawing an extra area. The suggestion also doesn't capture the kind of extension, eg side/rear/roof (not that I'm planning on capturing anything except side)

In my surveys I record of a house has a side extension, ie a later addition to the property. This is particularly important in my area where most properties were identical size when first constructed. Up until now I've only been using the survey info to make the building bigger. But that is losing information from the survey, so I'm now using this tag to record the info properly. It is also a firm of defence against armchair mappers using AI building outline from satellite tools HTH

Not sure about this one. Bishopsford Road is closed at the bridge, so right turn is the only thing that makes sense.

Thanks for the map edit. The standard convention for a street like that is access=private. You may also want to add barrier=gate to a node on the road where the gate it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86290046

Hi,I understand that you are improving the golf information, and that is great, but the car park parking_aisle is clearly correct and shouldn't be removed.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85308004