no problem, I added a residential area. I find OSM's history function to be opaque and the thing I noticed was the road replacing the area's boundary, so I presumed it was a mistake. And because the road network probably isn't adopted yet, left it as a construction area.

Truth is though, I use OSM to log active travel upgrades in the area, so am generally always editing, and if I sent a message I'd almost certainly forget about it (especially if the editor didn't reply)

I don't think replacing the border of an area with a street that doesn't exist could be described as anything other than a mistake. You'll notice I didn't replace the houses.

The solution is probably cycling=dismount on footways but even then I would posit that disabled users who can't easily dismount are being discriminated against, especially as organisations like Wheels for Wellbeing are campaigning to have cycles classed as invalid carriages. But I'm looking at areas like this osm.org/#map=19/53.486370/-2.256337 and becoming increasingly frustrated at users who draw systems that make it very difficult for pedestrians to cross from the carriageway to the footway. I believe such things are best done with tags.

I agree with most of this except the comment about public footpaths. A footpath is simply an entry on a council's definitive map which says that there is a right of way by foot across some land. It doesn't exclude other users - that is normally done with access controls on the route (physical barriers or signage). The existence of barriers is normally the only time I will exclude groups of users in OSM, along with signage (like trunk roads, motorways, some busways etc).

There are also many occasions where signage has been erected without legal force - Trafford has many of these, where councillors have asked highways for exclusionary signage without the legal paperwork, rendering them useless. There's one near me that isn't even on council land and is completely unenforceable.

Tell that to a child Pete, who can perfectly legally cycle on a footway. And tell that to someone on a disability aid, who can do the same. And please stop adding cycle=no to footpaths that have no such restrictions.

Oh and if you could ask your mates to stop building footway networks that connect to nothing that'd be great. And if they could stop disconnecting paths from roads, rendering those paths useless, that'd also be great.

Go for a bike ride Pete. You'll feel happier when you realise you're just wrong.

> WRT mobility aids, Disabled folk are permitted to use motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters limited to 4mph (not bicycles) according to pedestrian rules.

Right, so wheeling is permitted on pavements.

Also, please explain why you are banning children from cycling on the pavement, when that activity is allowed..

Actually, don't bother. Because we all know that you just don't like cycling, and are doing everything in your power to stop it everywhere. Including on public rights of way where no such bans exist.

> If you systematically delete cycle access tags then routers are likely to send cyclists on illegal routes.

Proof please. And please also explain why you think that pedestrian crossings that join shared footways cannot be cycled. A "solution" of yours that renders said shared footways completely useless.

edit - by highway I mean carriageway

I would also add that there is no justification whatsoever for cycling=no at any highway crossing. Cyclists have a common law right to use the highway and crossings are on the highway. Making them inaccessible is legally wrong and I will always remove those tags when I find them.

There is no point in creating cycleways that end with no means for a person to cycle back onto the highway. Banning cycling in changesets like this renders those cycleways completely useless to navigation software.

Furthermore, adding "dismount" is incorrect and discriminatory, since some disabled cyclists cannot dismount. That also happens to be the root of my objection to tagging all pavements as cycling=no; disabled people are perfectly entitled to cycle on the pavement using a cycle as a mobility aid. Let the navigation software decide if it will put cyclists on a pavement - not users.

Only at the junction, you can see a bit on streetview - https://maps.app.goo.gl/KdgnBGSAr8VkHARt8 To be honest I don't think legally it's even a oneway road there, it's just a no entry at the junction.

I could go into the politics but it's basically Nathan Evans (Tory cllr) using this as a divisive local issue. The whole thing is absolute bullshit, the crossing was petitioned for by a local schoolgirl. The council just decided to add a cycle route to it. The vicar is an idiot.

They don't know what they're talking about, only the junction is one-way for driving. The remainder is two-way.

yeah I see where they're coming from and I've added to the discussion, the issue for me is that simplicity in this case makes certain journeys unplannable. Apps like Komoot lose the ability to quickly reroute legally and safely if we tag roads incorrectly.

Interesting, thanks. My view is that you cannot have a pedestrian crossing on a motorway, it is illegal. It's that simple. Also, it is legal for pedestrians to walk in the highway directly off a pedestrian crossing, as long as they don't pass the motorway signage.

Also, I will remove restrictions on cycling on footpaths for the same reasons.

Disabled people cycle on pavements perfectly legally. They break no laws doing so. You are incorrect and I will remove any restrictions on cycling I see that do not have an explicit piece of signage that disallows it.

Besides which I have seen many instances where people blanket ban cycling on pavements incorrectly, such as in the presence of shared footways, or crossings where cycling is allowed.

Yeah thanks I noticed that on some other edits I made, it defaults sometimes to 20kph. I use the cyclosm layer to spot missing 20mph zones. There are loads missing.

I think I made a mistake, thanks for highlighting it. I'm unable to correct it for a few days.

Yeah I considered it, but it was so wildly inaccurate it would have taken me 3 times as long to reposition it than it did to simply redraw it.

I wouldn't hold my breath, things don't seem to work quickly. I've asked recently if there could be more inclusive language used around cycling (ie get rid of the bicycle term as disabled people often use 3-4 wheeled machines) and my request was treated with a complete lack of understanding. And I have had disagreements with people who think cycleways as part of the highway should be drawn separately. This place can be a bit like Wikipedia for edit wars which is why I tend to stick now to areas other people haven't edited.