While checking for infill housing, garages and sheds, I am finding streets where only one driveway is plotted for a whole street or estate. Previously I deleted the solitary driveways I found on a street as I could see no reason why only one driveway had been plotted where many others existed, or why that particular single driveway was mapped. I was accused of vandalising the map for this. I therefore decided where I found only a single driveway plotted to plot all the rest on the street in the same way that the original single driveway was picked out to be plotted. If the original single driveway connected to the footpath only, I followed that initial established pattern for all driveways. If I found the original single driveway connected to both the road and footpath, I follow that pattern for the whole street. Where no driveway on a street had been plotted by anyone else, I do not start, adding any driveways, leaving those streets without driveways.
The paving in of an entire private amenity front garden for parking or any other use requires planning permission. This is because it has significant implications. The widening of a driveway entrance to access additional parking also requires planning permission. The paving in of a grass margin on the public footpath to access additional parking requires a licence from the Local Authority. The removal of a street tree to access additional parking also requires a licence from the Local Authority. It also brings about the elimination of public on-street parking space(s) in favour of private only parking. In some instances such private parking is then made available for rent where the Local Authority has imposed on-street parking restrictions or charges. It is difficult to establish however where commercial arrangements apply. I only plot such private parking where the entirety of the front garden has been paved over.
It seems compliance with a rigid orthodoxy established by persons unknown to me is required for contributing to OSM. No departure from this orthodoxy is to be tolerated and anyone who does is to be blocked and or silenced. I have regularly checked the OSM Inspector issues flagged by Pascal Neis’s OSM Quality assurance system for my contributions to OSM. I have a very low level of OSMI or Osmouse issues flagged against my contributions compared to others. Despite this none of the points I have made in the previous discussions I have engaged with have been given any consideration, instead I’ve received total dismissal of my points (in particular regarding (i) “dismount” for cyclists on a public footpath, and (ii)private additional parking in residential areas that can simultaneously reduce public parking availability and more than double private parking in residential areas. I therefore see no point in contributing further to OSM

While checking for infill housing, garages and sheds, I am finding streets where only one driveway is plotted for a whole street or estate. Previously I deleted the solitary driveways I found on a street as I could see no reason why only one driveway had been plotted where many others existed, or why that particular single driveway was mapped. I was accused of vandalising the map for this. I therefore decided where I found only a single driveway plotted to plot all the rest on the street in the same way that the original single driveway was picked out to be plotted. If the original single driveway connected to the footpath only, I followed that initial established pattern for all driveways. If I found the original single driveway connected to both the road and footpath, I follow that pattern for the whole street. Where no driveway on a street had been plotted by anyone else, I do not start, adding any driveways, leaving those streets without driveways.
The paving in of an entire private amenity front garden for parking or any other use requires planning permission. This is because it has significant implications. The widening of a driveway entrance to access additional parking also requires planning permission. The paving in of a grass margin on the public footpath to access additional parking requires a licence from the Local Authority. The removal of a street tree to access additional parking also requires a licence from the Local Authority. It also brings about the elimination of public on-street parking space(s) in favour of private only parking. In some instances such private parking is then made available for rent where the Local Authority has imposed on-street parking restrictions or charges. It is difficult to establish however where commercial arrangements apply. I only plot such private parking where the entirety of the front garden has been paved over.
As it seems compliance with a rigid orthodoxy established by persons unknown to me is required for contributing to OSM and no departure is to be tolerated and that none of the points I have made in the previous discussions I have engaged with have been given any merit, instead I’ve received total dismissal of my points (in particular regarding (i) “dismount” for cyclists on a public footpath, and (ii)private parking in residential areas that can simultaneously reduce public parking availability and more than double private parking in residential areas, I see no point in contributing further to OSM

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2964663,-6.4921866,3a,25.3y,41.89h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHzrrc_VWXKSQzBkp9QTe-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu - ""The Crescent"

Edited