Hi - you've changed the operator of the Moreton Co-op from Midcounties to the (Manchester) Co-op Group. Are you sure about this? Midcounties bought the Warners Budgens stores a couple of years ago and it seems vanishingly unlikely they've sold it onto the Manchester group.

Thank you!

The challenge here is that highway tags in the UK have meaning about whether or not someone has a legal right to use that road.

You have changed a bridleway (implies foot, horse and bicycle access rights) to a track (does not imply access rights). This will break foot, horse and bike routing. Please revert this change.

You have changed a bridleway (implies foot, horse and bicycle access rights) to a track (does not imply access rights). This will break foot, horse and bike routing. Please revert this change.

You have not updated bicycle access tags on this change which means you have potentially broken bike routing.

Do you have evidence that this is a public road open to motor vehicles, as your change to highway=unclassified would imply?

You have changed a road from highway=bridleway (implies bicycle, horse and foot access rights) to highway=track (does not imply any access rights). This is going to negatively affect bicycle, foot and horse routing. Please revert this change.

You have changed a road from highway=bridleway (implies bicycle, horse and foot access rights) to highway=track (does not imply any access rights). This is going to negatively affect bicycle, foot and horse routing. Please revert this change.

You have changed a road from highway=cycleway (implies bicycle access rights) to highway=service (does not necessarily imply bicycle access rights). This is going to negatively affect bicycle routing. Please revert this change.

I have now tagged this as unsigned=yes which means that I can at least filter it out from cycle.travel. But I agree with streckenkundler and Karthoo that it should be deleted entirely.

(Where the English-language wiki pages say "named or numbered or otherwise signed", that means "signed with a name, or with a number, or with something else" (e.g. a symbol). It's using "otherwise" as an adjective. It doesn't mean "a named route without signing is ok".)

It shouldn't really be in OSM if it's not signposted. There are thousands of "my favourite cycle ride" routes out there in books, magazines, etc., often named.

At the very least it needs to be tagged as unsigned. Otherwise routers with turn-by-turn directions will say things like "Turn left onto Bio Velo Route", which is actively confusing if there aren't any signs. unsigned=yes on the relation is good for this.

But I agree with Karthoo, really it shouldn't be in OSM.

No, highway=secondary is used for B roads in the UK. If you want to reverse a convention of over 15 years then please ask the talk-gb mailing list.

Hi - thanks for your contributions. Bikes have a legal access right to use this track, even if it's impractical to ride it. "bicycle=no" would mean that bikes aren't allowed and as such it's not the right tag to use here.

The best way to fix this is to make sure that the surface tags are accurate, reflecting the reality that bikes are allowed but it's impractical.

You may of course find that a different app/website does a better job of choosing a suitable route for touring bikes than the one you used!

Hi,

You've changed a bunch of roads from highway=tertiary to highway=residential.

The problem with this is that "highway=residential, tiger:reviewed=no" is indistinguishable from the millions of impassable tracks imported from TIGER that have the same tagging (e.g. way/14539476).

Obviously they all need fixing, but that will take many years, so until then it's best to use a distinct tag combination to note that this road _has_ been reviewed and is indeed a paved residential road. This will allow bike routers, for example, to tell the difference between this and the raw TIGER tracks.

I'd suggest adding "surface=paved" would be best but, failing that, you could just remove "tiger:reviewed=no" to indicate that you have reviewed the road.

cheers
Richard

Hello Jun - Could you clarify what you mean by "an old street view"? We're not allowed to use Google Street View as a source (or indeed any other source less than 70 years old without explicit permission).

Indeed, this is just wrong: the "City of Leicester" administrative area is not the same as "Leicester".

@borovac, UK administrative boundaries and naming is really complex, and I'd suggest it's probably not the easiest thing to tackle from Serbia unless you have a full understanding of them. I wouldn't try to fix tagging of Serbian administrative boundaries!

Ok, thanks, but you still don't need to add "name:it=Worcestershire" etc. It already says "name=Worcestershire". You don't need to duplicate it in lots of extra tags, one for each language - just add a language-specific name where it differs from the standard name= tag (and is attested as differing).

Hi,

Why have you added all these names?

1. This isn't Worcester (which is a city), it's Worcestershire (which is a county). This would be like taking the relation for California and adding "name:sk=Sacramento".

2. You don't need to add translated names where they don't differ from the main name tag.

3. Some of these look like plain transliterations. OSM doesn't store transliterations, they can be derived automatically.

Hi Mauro, in this changeset you've removed a large section of the EuroVelo 1 route (from Calzadilla de los Barros to Galisteo) - was that intentional?