I’ve just messaged Roshmaps about it, thank you for the reminder.

What are you trying to achieve with these speed limits edits? Are you trying to make sure that every highway in the network has a speed limit set, even if that means guessing them? I’m interested in understanding your motivations here. It might help us see more eye-to-eye.

Hiya, did you mean to change way/219044962 to access=permissive? That would indicate that the default access for that track is permissive, but the tracks either side of it are marked as access=private.

access=private is the norm for farm tracks

Thanks in advance :)

Are you sure the roads in Ripley St Thomas (e.g. way/433800865) have a 10mph speed limit? I agree there’s a campus-wide speed limit of 10mph on the RLI campus, but Ripley St Thomas is separate.

What’s your source for this information?

Can you please stop adding speed limits to private driveways? It’s not correct.

For anyone looking at this later, this isn’t just an arbitrary deletion of a barn, it’s resolving a merge conflict. See changeset/158898865

For anyone looking at this later, this isn’t just an arbitrary deletion of a track, it’s resolving a merge conflict. See changeset/158898865

Also add some missing service roads/building passages along Stramongate, and roughly adjust the terraced building shape to accommodate them. This terrace needs a lot more work, but I don’t plan on doing that now.

Good point, done in changeset/158813895 ta

Ah, indeed, in this case whoever mapped this has split the driveway at the property boundary, so this edit makes sense.

But more generally, what about the other private driveways you’ve put a speed limit on?

Hiya. Are you sure it’s valid to set a speed limit on someone’s private driveway? As I understand it, speed limits apply to public roads. None of these driveways have a speed limit signed on the ground.

I think perhaps you are being misled by the title which the ID editor applies to crossing=traffic_signals nodes. It does title them as “Crossing With Pedestrian Signals”, but if you look lower down, the Type is “Crossing With Traffic Signals”. I think it’s a bug for ID to title them “Crossing With Pedestrian Signals”.

In any case, the wiki gives the canonical meaning of the tags, not whatever labels ID applies to them. See crossing=traffic_signals

As I have said previously, the wiki documents bicycle=dismount as meaning that no cycling is allowed, but you are allowed to push your bike. See bicycle=dismount

So bicycle=dismount is legally correct here, and more appropriate than bicycle=no because of the “cyclists dismount“ signs. IMO these are an acknowledgement from the council that cycling is not legal for a short stretch here, but that people will want to do it because there are cycle paths at both ends of the dismount stretch.

The wiki documents crossing=traffic_signals as “This tag is used for traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings.”, i.e. the lights are for the traffic, not the pedestrians. That describes what’s here on the ground. Pedestrians cross when the lights are red, and vehicles won’t stop otherwise. IIRC there isn’t a button for pedestrians to request to cross, and that can be represented using button_operated=no. I didn’t add that tagging because I haven’t explicitly resurveyed it to check that.

Could you please stop removing geometric detail from the map? If you think these shouldn’t be crossings, then maybe change them to footway=link, but don’t delete correct geometric detail which others have added to the map.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation

How is this not a cycle crossing? It has a cycle path on both sides and no signage saying it’s not a cycle crossing.

And the ref has been removed in changeset/158186823

(For anyone reading this in future, the discussion which led to this change is on changeset/158181121)

Makes sense, changed to service=drive-through in changeset/158187613

Thanks! :D