Hi JohnBradshaw, I recognise this is an old edit now, but just wondering what the rationale is behind changing mini-roundabouts to full roundabouts due to numbers of incoming/outgoing lanes? I see no mention of this practice on [highway=mini_roundabout](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Dmini_roundabout).

Hi kevinmcg, nice work with mapping of buildings here. A tip for better results is to use the "Q" key with a building selected, to square off the hand-drawn corners.

It also helps other editors if you include a more accurate description when submitting your edits, for example "buildings in the Antrim Road area". If you have any queries, do feel free to respond on this changeset, or reach out to me by private message.

Hi kevinmcg, I've corrected one of your edits on Dargan Road, the Dale Farm building. You labelled this as shop=dairy, but while that's the activity of this company, the building is not a dairy. For clarity, the description of your tag is "A shop selling dairy products."

I've changed this to office=company, the description of which is "An office of a private company."

Please do reach out to me, I'd be happy to chat via the messaging system in the openstreetmaps editor – I'm an experienced mapper and can offer tips and advice to avoid adding incorrect information to the map. I have tried getting in touch previously, so you may already have messages waiting in your inbox.

Hi Kevin, this isn't a building taking up the whole space. I'll remove the building=yes tag for you and make it clear it is an area under construction instead. Additionally, if you have a source for this being a telecom exchange, could you please reference it in your "Changeset comments" when you save an edit? Otherwise, your edits may be minsconstrued as vandalism.

Just a note to say great work pablobm, thanks! 👏😊

No prob, thanks for pointing it out :)

Ah, thanks for that ramthelinefeed - looks like I forgot to remove the route relations from the (formerly road ways) admin boundary lines, so there was a duplication of the route along a short stretch. Have fixed now; OSM inspector isn't currently behavong for me so I can't check whether it's resolved now, but it should be.

Apols, incorrect reference link - the correct one is bridge=*#Bridge_lifecycle

Thanks for the edit ChezFrogLegs. Could I suggest though, rather than deletion, to mark the bridge as collapsed via its tags, as per bridge=*#Bridge%20lifecycle ?

Just swapping the highway tag for abandoned:highway would do this and mean that the way is still mapped and can be reinstated at a later date if/when rebuilt (or altered to ruins:highway or removed:highway etc as appropriate). This also has the added benefit that any unwitting mapper who comes along and sees the old aerial imagery doesn't inadvertently reinstate the footway.

Thanks for the message. To address each point:
1. I've found a few that didn't quite match on the north face of the building - fixed now. All nodes link to the outer edge of the building where they should; nodes that are away from the edge of the building are deliberately so for the facades (see below) and for the angled roof sections which meet in the middle.
2. Thanks for that, I've removed the construction tags on the building - the surrounding area is still under construction, so is correct.
3. Yes, this is representative of what is on the ground (while using the newest imagery as a reference).
4. Roof sections are tagged with building:material, not roof:material, because their outer walls are concrete. However it's probably more elegant to place the building:material in the main building, so I've done so and removed from each of the building:parts.
5. This facade could potentially be a barrier=wall with material=glass instead of a polygon I suppose - not sure it would render well in 3D though, and the East wall would still need to have the current setup anyway (as the angled roof shape is also part of the polygon). There are pros and cons to either approach, not least that technically it should be a "part" of the building construction, rather than a separately mapped line. But I'm open to suggestions.

Ah, fair enough :-)

This does highlight a wider difficulty around effectively mapping floor numbers, heights and separate parts of buildings that are on uneven/sloping ground though. Technically the way you mention, relative to ground level on the north side (entrance side), would have height=0, or perhaps height=-3 or something as it is a basement level. Meanwhile, where it sits on the south side, the ground level is much lower, so in reality it's more than a metre proud of the surrounding ground. I think my height=1 was a compromise to demonstrate the distinctive shape to the building (part). It's a difficult thing to standardise really.

Another nearby example is way/148653738 which has an underground level which becomes ground level at one end of the building.

I should add, it'll take around 24 hours for f4map to update, it's a bit annoying like that.

Thanks, I had some time on my hands :-D

On that photo, the way you're talking about is just out of sight around the building, to the left. So you may be confusing it with the shelter over the main entrance on the north side (which admittedly I didn't map). I've made another edit which adds the entrance structure, in case that clarifies. The bit on the other side (from my own knowledge of it) has a basement space, while the ground floor is just a flat terrace.

My apologies, and thanks for the correction. Some parking ways etc had this inconsistently applied, so I had thought it was a mistake. NB this is likely to result in GPS routers stating "turn left onto A4" on any of these service roads, causing confusion, so it may be that a different or subset tag would be appropriate like loc_ref - but as a visitor I don't want to intrude on local standards 😊

Ooh, sorry about that! I thought I had picked up on any relations at the time.

Ah yes - there are no signs because it is still national speed limit in all directions - no signage is required, as there is no change. Rumble strips may cause a driver to reduce speed, but "maxspeed" is for the legal limit of the road, not the driveable limit. So on the A4 dual carriageway (and on A5 DC link to the old Ballygawley roudabout) I have marked as
maxspeed=70 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_dual
[NB: This is the established norm for UK national speed limits: the maxspeed:type contains the signed NSL and type of applicable road; maxspeed contains the highest legal speed by any vehicle (in this case, car/motorbike/light van) and is provided for routers which don't yet process the UK NSL tags. Once they do, they should show the lowest of the two tags, dependent on vehicle type.]
Similarly, on the single carriageway A5/A4 I have set as
maxspeed=60 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single.

The nearest national speed limit signs are on the Grange Road approach from Ballygawley (signed 30 mph) to the old roundabout.

Hi MCDA, thanks for the query. This was part of some large-scale maxspeed updates over the past few months to improve routing & for any other data applications - I've tried my best to minimise errors, but I accept there may be some.

Regarding street lights however, I researched this as much as possible (there is not much documened online, and the legislation is somewhat open to interpretation). The clearest source I could find was this [2009 discussion on the RAC forums](https://forum.rac.co.uk/threads/9339-When-does-an-unrestricted-road-become-restricted/page2) with information purported to be from the DfT and Thames Valley Police, stating their shared interpretation that a truly "restricted" road (i.e. 30 limit denoted by presence of street lights) can only be enforced if it has a 30 limit sign when you enter the section of road. Thus, when in the zone, no repeater signs are required because the street lights denote the restricted nature of the road. Meanwhile, if you enter a stretch of road with street lights and no indication of entering a restricted (30) limit, this is not considered to be a restricted road and therefore retains the limit last signposted (e.g. NSL).

[Incidentally, I'm not aware of any mention in legislation of a implied 40 limit as per your message, only interpretations of an implied 30 limit.]

In practice, if traffic were to slow down to 30 at any section with street lights (e.g. around junctions on the dual carriageway A4) it would actually be dangerous to them and other road users. The other practical issue I can think of is where drivers use a "black box" speed monitor to keep their insurance premiums low. If they were to drive along a NSL single carriageway at 60 mph, pass a few streetlights at a junction where the road has been marked on OSM as a 30 limit, due to only the presence of lamp posts, they will be unfairly penalised when this is processed as a transgression.

General opinion is that the legislation around speed limits is a bit of a mess, but the DfT and TVP intepretation appears to provide fairly clear and implementable standard. Happy to discuss here or somewhere more public, if this doesn't seem like the right interpretation :-)

Oops indeed! My bad, thanks for spotting 😊

I must have been splitting ways at the roundabout while I was at it, left out the step of adding relations back in. Fixed now.

Thanks for those, I may get to them at some point 😊

Even a short distance NW of this edit there's a long section of the Cavan Road which should just be a single carriageway, with traffic islands mapped as nodes. The approach I take is as documented on the OSM wiki (osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway) - if there is no physical barrier separating the carriageways, it's not a dual carriageway and should be mapped as a single way. As a result the Cavan Road has driveways linked to only one side of the road, but you can guarantee the road design is not meant to be left-in left-out only for those access ways. There are occasional exceptions to what's in the wiki, but roads like these are pretty clear cut (see also examples on the wiki page).

It does take some unpicking of relations though (bus routes and the like), so needs some care. I also check which way is the oldest of the two, to retain as much edit history as possible. Give it a try some time – or otherwise I may get round to it.

*Typo, gat=that