Morning, this breaks the rendering on e.g. OpenRiverboatMap, I was given to understand that motorboat= is a larger vessel (like a canal boat) and boat= might just be an open dinghy. The motorboat= tag is present on 39k ways according to TagInfo, what's the appropriate scenario for its use? Thanks!

Non existent? The fact that they're private doesn't mean they don't exist. What is your source, please?

Hello, thank you for your edits! However, it's hard for computers to interpret descriptions in names, so it's good practice to leave them out:
osm.wiki/Names
"Descriptive text, alphanumeric IDs, advertising slogans and similar items should not be included in names."
For example, here we'll just set tags name=Warren Drive and access=private.
Much appreciated, cheers

That's news to me, apologies. I don't understand the distinction

I was about to direct you to the StreetComplete issue tracker, but I see you've already done so https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/5592 Thank you for your diligence on this.

Hello, only just seen this; I fear I've just undone your work again, certainly not my intention to get into an edit war. Please accept my apologies.

That said, is this really common practice on UK waterways? OSM wiki suggests not:

>The tag is also used to indicate if a river is practically navigable or not for boats, however, this is ambiguous, as it does not provide any information about the boat types for which this is valid. Access limitations can however also be constituted by legislation which might refer to on-the-ground factors factors such as date, water level, or damage to the surroundings caused by using the waterway.

I can certainly think of situations and routes where one might tag boat=yes, motorboat=no (for example, a dinghy with outboard motor can manage, but a narrowboat or widebeam cruiser isn't maneuverable enough - such as the River Severn east and west channels above the Lower Parting through Gloucester, which has a legal right of navigation, but is a bit overgrown due to low use).

Welcome your thoughts. Thank you!

motor_vehicle=yes on Shore Road is a mistake, no? It's permanently pedestrianised now, all year round. I'll change back

Hello, is the street name really Calle Peligro? Thank you!

In contravening this, you're overwriting years of work by others and making the map noticeably worse for vulnerable road users, who are looking for traffic-free routes.

I'm not making any of this up, it's years of established best practice. osm.wiki/Further_guidance_on_tagging_Public_Rights_of_Way_in_the_United_Kingdom#Access_conditions

"

When adding access=* tags to a highway that is also a PRoW you should only add the tags granted to that highway by the PRoW status – unless other legal access restrictions are verifiably known. In our public footpath and service road example, the following is correct if we know nothing else about any other legal access restrictions on the road:

highway=service
foot=designated (this is the only access tag we are certain of)
designation=public_footpath
prow_ref=*

You should not assume that access is, or is not, permitted by other transport modes. It may not even be possible to determine this from a ground survey.

Although the legal access may not be explicitly covered by the PRoW type, other transport modes may still be allowed. For example, cyclists may still be allowed on a public footpath."

*that should of course say foot=designated

Again, we've discussed this. That's factually incorrect. There is a legal right of way for walkers (foot=permissive) and, despite your assertion, that doesn't mean anything at all about other uses. For example, St. Andrew's Church in Whitminster, the driveway of which has permissive vehicle access to its car park. You tagged that in the same way. Unless there's a sign saying no cycling or horses, you cannot set that tag.
I've reported you to the Data Working Group.

Have you ever been to Stonepitts Bridge? I have. It is an agricultural track, for tractors, with footpath permissions, not a narrow footway. You are not mapping to ground truth.

osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Note: Rather than being influenced by the name of the access provision, tag the feature according to what you observe on the ground. For example a 'Public Footpath' that runs along the route of a farmer's track should be tagged as highway=track rather than highway=footway."

So for example you would usually set foot=designated, designation=public_footpath. But as you've seen the ground truth may not be highway=footpath, it could be highway=track or highway=service like the driveway in St. Andrew's Church, Whitminster I mentioned. In that case, other users like cars, bikes and horses have permissive usage. bicycle=no really only indicates a physical obstacle like a narrow kissing gate.

The presence of a legal right for walkers does not mean no access for other users. Permissive access exists.

Thank you!

"For example: access=designated makes no sense but foot=designated makes perfect sense."

Hello, access=designated is meaningless, see access=designated

Hello, this seems to extend much too far north, it shouldn't cover South Gloucestershire villages such as Wickwar and Charfield, and certainly not Gloucestershire houses near Hillesley, Wotton-under-Edge, North Nibley, and Dursley. Bristol was never part of these addresses, as suggested by the GL postcode. Can you please fix? Thank you!

Hello, I see you've set a lot of the Thames and Severn Canal towpath to bicycle=no, horse=no again. What is your source for this? On a survey visit I found MTB use was popular and there is no reason equestrian use would be prohibited.