It's a long way since I used that road, but service is probably better than track

Probably not incorrect, but whatever it is it's private access

The last time I used Pudding Lane, there were bollards to prevent through motor traffic, and I assume there was a TRO to cover this. If this is no longer the case, go ahead. Don't downgrade non-motor access from designated to yes though.

Hello Colin.

It looks like this admin boundary way has at least one dragged node:-
way/379804190 - are you able to verify it? It's part of these relations:-
Relation Bere Regis (5654591) (as outer)
Relation Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle (5656638) (as outer)

Jon

access=designated

Hi!

I think you've misunderstood what "designated" means - it's more positive than yes, so setting motor_vehicle=designated when the signs forbid motor vehicles is strange.

Jon

Apologies - I see you fixed it in changeset/149034089

Hi!

The name of way/245481602 was changed from "Wade Road" to "∑∑" - was this intentional?

Jon

Hi!

Is way/1258585957 a "biergarten in the Bavarian sense" (amenity=biergarten) separate to the adjacent pub, or outdoor seating typical of a British pub (leisure=outdoor_seating)?

amenity=biergarten?uselang=en-GB
leisure=outdoor_seating

Jon

hi!

When adding road bridges, they should be joined with the sections of road that are tagged as bridge=yes
man_made=bridge

e.g. way/1254369201 should be joined to node/1133882521 and node/21453411

Jon

oops - sorry, I see someone else added it to the name!

Hi!

The reference numbers for rights of way should go under "prow_ref" rather than "name" prow%20ref=*?uselang=en-GB

Jon

This article explains the tagging for on-road cycle lanes that are not physically segregated from motor traffic:-
cycleway=lane

hi!

You added way/1246444982 - a cycleway parallel to way/162735621 which already had the necessary cycleway tags on it. I'll remove the duplicate.

Jon

I get the impression the councils (Woking and Surrey) plus Sustrans didn't consider the impact of the redevelopment of the town centre on the cycling routes or the need to put up signs (the Pluto LCN has been broken for years after the fire station moved).

Hello.

This edit made changes to the node node/278525 (part of a road in England). I assume the changes should have been made to relation/278525 (a hotel in France) so I have transferred the changes there.

Jon

Je suis désolé mais je ne parle pas français - j'ai transféré des données incorrectement dans changeset/145521928 de node/278525 à relation/278525

Hello conifermapper.

"South Manydown" is the section south of the railway line - the section north of the railway line is just "Manydown". I'm also not sure that construction has started yet, especially on such a large area - the first area to be built was only given approval this month.

Jon

Hello again.

Thanks for replying so quickly.
Whilst adding ordinary pavements as separate ways isn't wrong, it can be a lot of work to get right, especially managing all the links to crossings and side roads. Unless there's something special about a particular pavement (e.g. it's separated from the road by a fence, or it's a shared use path with cycling allowed), it's usually easier just to add the tags to the road itself.

If you're interested, you might like to look at the mobile app StreetComplete which makes adding tags to existing roads and paths simple.

osm.wiki/StreetComplete
https://streetcomplete.app/

Jon

Hello!

The pavement for Alresford Road where it crosses the motorway should be tagged as bridge=yes and layer=1 (to match the adjacent road) - it should not be joined to the motorway itself (there's no way a pedestrian could get from the pavement to the motorway). If you are going to map pavements separately from the roads, which isn't commonly done, could you also split the crossings and tag those as footway=crossing, please? footway=crossing

Jon

Jon