Hi there Zen,
Thanks for updating the these businesses. I never got around to doing so after remapping this area. I did a video survey back in July which may be of use to you if you wish to add the rest. it is available here on mapillary: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=732778959490857

Kind regards,
Kits

Hi there, what is your source for this speed limit? from memory I believe this lane is only a 30.

Hi, Thanks for reply.

There are what I would describe as cycle barriers on either end of the path. That is two fences that overlap but with a large gap for a person to pass. I would interpret the barriers as discouraging the path but not blocking it. I've readded the path since it is still well formed and not blocked on either side along with my most recent update.

I did consider adding access=discouraged but since there is only "cycle barriers" and no formal signage to discouraging it I've left the access tag it out but I've mapped it as a path with a higher sac_scale value to contrast the main paths which I've mapped as footpaths and a 0 sac_scale value for the most part.

I didn't notice a sign but i will admit i wasnt looking for one. i also encounted a closed path with a diversion near the south. i've just added it but i didnt put down a gps marker for it and cant 100% remember where it is so i've made a rough guess on its location. i do plan to go back up there to explore more so i'll fix it in the future

hi there rimeraz, why have you marked this path with access=no? coincidentally I just walked this path only a matter of hours ago.

No no, you've done nothing wrong. the NGED project stretches to the east coast and down to Cornwall as well. i'm just focusing on Wales to start with but this last grid has proven to me this process is still too manual and I need to automate it more. I will break them down into quarters too so I commit 4 times as often which should stop as many conflicts and having to ask people not to commit like this.

At the moment these grids take a couple of weeks of heavy work so not only is it slow I also burn out after doing one. rural ones are not as bad but as density rises so does the workload.

I'm pushing hard to get this one done now since i started it after that i'll take a break to investigate more automation.

This is the 2nd time i've asked this of you, i do apologize, this grid has taken me longer than I expected. going forward i intent to split the grids up into quarters so i don't go as long without committing a changeset and risking conflicts as i am now.

Hi there Groove,
Just a heads up, i'm currently importing power infrastructure for in this area as part of osm.wiki/NGED_Import_Project. The current area i'm working is a box extending roughly from aberdare to the north of cardiff. If i could ask you to avoid that area until i've i've committed to avoid conflicts, thanks.

Also i would strongly recommend against mapping power cables as individual ways as it will result in a excessive spam of ways, particularly in areas around primary substations where you can have 15+ cables on top of each other. instead you can group them together using the circuits tag and a circuit relation to map the part of the individual lines.

Hello Phillip,
Could I kindly ask you to be a bit more cautious when adding UPRNs? I’ve just come across a couple of areas of grass where UPRNs have been added, which doesn’t quite seem to make sense. In one case, for example, the UPRN appears to correspond to a bus stop shelter rather than the entire grassy area:
way/255371122

There’s no issue with adding UPRNs when the centroid clearly lines up with a building like a house but adding them in places like this doesn't make sense. It would be great to avoid guesswork where possible.

Thanks for your contributions!

"Why should the OSM community decisions override those of the communities who build these trails" -

Because the map doesn't belong to you. OpenStreetMap is not a private registry for land managers or trail builders to curate what they think the public should or shouldn’t see. It’s a global, open, factual map of what exists on the ground. The job of OSM is not to enforce your access policies or preserve your status quo—it’s to reflect observable reality, transparently and accurately.

No one is denying the effort local communities put into trail building or land stewardship. But that doesn’t give you veto power over what gets mapped. If a trail is visible, verifiable, and walkable, then it belongs on the map—with appropriate tags like informal=yes, access=private, or hazard=yes. That’s how responsible mapping works.

Pretending something doesn’t exist by keeping it off the map doesn’t make it safer, doesn’t reduce usage, and doesn’t protect your community. It just makes users less informed. And that’s the real danger.

This is the last comment i'm gonna make in this thread as it is not the place for such a discussion. if you are serious about this then please start a discussion on https://community.openstreetmap.org/ and convince the community of your argument.

Kind regards,
Kits

Your argument a frankly ridiculous. as the wiki page states, OSM is a database so the trail exists then it should be mapped, full stop. there are various access and difficulty tags applied on top to restrict or discourage or inform use which appears to have all ready been partly done already in this case with the addition of `access=discouraged informal=yes`.

"OSM Policy" as you called it is not a arbitrary decision made by some anonymous exec at a company. these are standards which the community as a whole have decided on. going against them like this is going against all of us and the way you talking about it is frankly insulting. This could have been handled a 100% better by taking it to the forums for so the community may have discussed it. resorting to a revert war is just pathetic and a waste of people's time.

I see you main account has now been banned. Please be better in future if you still which to be part of this community.

Ignore my previous comment. for some reason I thought you added the tag not removed. :/

Hi Richard, just in response to your note, this is common for NCN routes. My local route 46 also has few missing chunks. The routes are usually built in small chunks that get connected up over time.

Hello GrooveBox, I'm currently importing all power lines in this area as part of the osm.wiki/NGED_Import_Project
Please forgive me for being rude but could I ask you to postpone adding any more power line in this area for about a week until I finish this area as any changes require me to merge with my work in progress. The area I'm working on extends from Llanhilleth to Abergavenny.
Thanks

Hi, This road is most defiantly paved.

I just updated my josm to the latest and it doesnt give me any such warning. it maybe one of your plugins doing it.

Morning,
I cant speak for the JOSM team however it is 100% implied. It makes sense logically and its stated on the wiki. This might have just been a oversight by them. crossing=unmarked
"crossing=unmarked implies crossing:markings=no. Adding crossing:markings=no is possible, but not necessary. Any crossing=unmarked with crossing:markings=* present and set to a value other than no could point to a mistake in the tagging."

I don't see how you could have a give way against traffic. Its a contradiction, for a backwards giveway you need to have backwards flowing traffic, on one way roads you do not, either the giveway is wrong or the oneway is wrong. The only exception i can think of would be some extreme case where oneway=-1 is needed but I would say direction=forward is implied on one way roads.

again i'm just nitpicking here, what you've added isnt wrong but just of clutter which you seem to be interested in reducing.

Good evening Nathan,
Just a couple of minor nitpicks. I noticed you were removing some implied tags so I thought I would mention that crossing:markings=no is implied by crossing=unmarked and direction=forward is not necessary for highway=giveway on oneway roads since direction=backward is impossible on oneway roads.
Kind regards,
Kits

The signs I am working off are the final permanent signage that has been installed in recent months as part of the construction. construction on everything other than the A465 flyover and Swansea road is complete and the current alignment is the final alignment. you can see the signs yourself here https://imgur.com/a/I1MkABM. But its very obvious on the ground where the road starts. I dont have a problem with the ramps like this as the ramps currently are the main carriageway until the flyover is built. I sure there is a reason why the B4276 hasn't been extended to the A465 or swansea road however just because we dont like it doesnt mean its not correct.

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground
On the ground It is mapped as (B4276) which means as stated by the "know your traffic signs" government publication "Route numbers in brackets are roads that will be reached by following the route indicated." meaning it is not that road number but it leads to that road number. Following the "Map what's on the ground" principle even if you found a contradicting source, the signage on the ground would take precedence. This is not the first time I've made this correction either. The changeset where I corrected this last has "Survey" listed as a source and I can provide images of the signs in question on request. You overruled my changes with no sources, no discussion and no justification.

sorry i didnt see your comment in time. I'm not being pedantic. The final signage has been put up and i surveyed it yesturday. The signage is clear on where the B4276 ends