Hi.

You've added a fence that joins with (i.e. shares a node with) a cycleway, implying that the cycleway is blocked. Is this correct, or should the fence stop before the cycleway?
Fence: way/729329293#map=18/51.14612/-0.98494&layers=C
Cycleway: way/166311151#map=21/51.14550/-0.98249&layers=C

Jon

Hi.

There's no need to specify access/bicycle/motor_vehicle if the values match the defaults shown here: osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom
In addition, access=yes can be ambiguous and does not really mean much.

Jon

Thanks for fixing the access tag.

Jon

Having looked more deeply, Whitmead Lane is part of both of signposted cycle route (relation/8521497) and a walking route (relation/5537392). Can you confirm the source and nature of the restriction, please?

Jon

Hello.

You have marked Whitmead Lane as "access=destination". I have cycled down here, and there were no restrictions. The road also links two public rights of way (a public footpath and a public bridleway) and is maintained at public expense. Is this restriction only for motor vehicles (as opposed to pedestrians, horses, and cyclists)? If so, could you change it to "motor_vehicle=destination"?

Jon

Hello.

You've added a node named "Parking" (node/6779650372#map=21/51.04962/-1.31120&layers=C) in the middle of an existing car park (way/9417973#map=20/51.04967/-1.31127&layers=C). It looks like this addition is redundant.
In addition, the "name" part is used for things with names (in the case, it would be "Garnier Road car park") not to describe the thing being added.

Jon

Hello.
It looks like this changeset has broken the cycleway (also a public bridleway) which is part of NCN23 near St Catherine's Hill: way/48127425#map=17/51.03900/-1.31779&layers=C

Could you fix this please?

Jon

Hello.
Can you confirm if the roads that you added were based on GPS traces, or if they are from aerial imagery? The new roundabout was only completed recently, and the car park to the north was removed.

Jon

Thanks for fixing it (and adding the footways in the first place).

Jon

Hello.

I see that you've marked the footways that you added around Downmill Road with "bicycle=yes". Is this new? I don't recall seeing the round blue signs allowing cycling (except on the west/north side of the road). If so, could you add segregated=yes/no (segregated=*), please?

Jon

Thanks for deleting these two road segments.

Jon

Hello.
You've added service roads across a country park - they have not existed for years. Please remove them.

Jon

Hello Andy.

It's not the actual name. I'm not sure how that got there. I'll sort it out shortly.

Jon

Thanks!

Hello.

Could you add maxspeed, lit, and surface tags for the two link roads that you created, please? The adjacent roads all have these tags.

Jon

way/159524164 is a private road, so "motor_vehicle=yes" is incorrect. According to access=*#Access_tag_values "motor_vehicle=yes" means that any driver has a legal right of way on this track, which is not true. Please change it to "motor_vehicle=delivery"

Apologies - I see that you updated it and it was already marked as a cycleway. I will fix it later.

Jon

Hello.

You marked Three Post Lane in Lambourn way/136788722 as a cycleway. It is signposted as a public footpath with No Cycling signs either side.

Jon

Hello.

I think you forgot to add highway=footway (or highway=path) to these footways. Could you also add the surface, please?

Jon

Thanks - that's great.