(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Access tags like foot=no in OSM are intended to reflect the legal position. In the UK, pedestrians use highways by absolute right, unless there is a traffic order and sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited"). It's not very common, although you can see it at the entrances to the nearby Upper Thames Street Tunnel. It isn't the case on White Lion Hill, even on the short section without a pavement between the steps down to Paul's Walk and Blackfriars Underpass.

It's understandable that you might want to discourage pedestrian routing on the carriageway, but however unsafe and impractical it might seem to you, it's still legal. If pedestrian routing software has tried to suggest it as a route, I'd be a little dubious about any other routes it might produce.

This is quite a common misunderstanding and, as it's been reverted, no harm has been done. Happy mapping (and Happy Christmas)!

* no *right* turn in #3 above

Hi, as you didn't respond to my question, I took a little look at the signed restrictions around the junction of Terminus Place and Buckingham Palace Road. I've also submitted images to Mapillary.

1) From Buckingham Palace Road southbound, there is a signed "no left turn, except buses" restriction. Taxis are not allowed.

2) There is no sign prohibiting vehicles other than buses and taxis on the section of Terminus Place, therefore the restriction you added was fictitious.

3) From Buckingham Palace Road northbound (a physically separated carriageway with a "no entry except buses" sign) and a signed "no left turn, except buses" restriction. Taxis are not allowed in either case.

Fiction reverted in changeset/176319074

Hello Logan,

No problem - and thanks for getting back to me.

Are you sure about the access tags here, which have the effect that no transport mode is permitted (including pedestrians and cyclists) and also (redundantly) no motor vehicle is permitted?

The Mapillary imagery from 2023-06 would suggest the bollard be tagged as:
barrier=bollard + bollard=removable + motor_vehicle=private + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive

These need a little context. The traffic sign prohibiting motor vehicles except for access would usually be motor_vehicle=destination, but with a line of bollards that's not really true. It's on a private (ownership) road, which we can assume from the 5mph speed limit (doesn't occur on public highways in the UK), so signage doesn't have to be consistent. Because it's privately owned, bicycle and foot are assumed to be permissive unless there's evidence of a legal right of way.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/milhouse?lat=51.4895733&lng=-0.2868646&z=19.254109981608817&focus=photo&pKey=2000001437030905

Thank you!

I only noticed that this could be a problem this weekend, when the name of a London Borough with name tags which included name=* (in English) and name:fr=* but not name:en=* was presented to me in French. I assume that this was influenced by the accept language headers my browser sends, but it wasn't what I would have expected.

Thanks for adding these.

When the feature only had an English language name=* before you added name:ar=* please could you also duplicate the original in name:en=* ? Some data consumers can exhibit unexpected behaviour with incomplete tagging of multilingual names.

osm.wiki/Multilingual_names#Repeating_name_with_language_specific_tag

No problem. Thanks for helping to keep the map up to date - and for making me aware of a brewery I need to "research" next time I'm near Dorking.

Please don't delete features which clearly exist. This track is clearly visible in Bing's aerial imagery and OS Open Maps Local (October 2025). It is also recorded in the OS Open Roads dataset.

Reverted in changeset/176160760

Re-tagged as a track with private access for all transport modes in changeset/176160859

As the main part of Lawday Place Lane is already tagged with access=destination (presumably an un-gated, privately owned unadopted highway), this track would not in any case have been reachable by OSM-based routing software except as a destination.

Please take a look at the following wiki articles:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

As OSM is an international project, phone numbers stored as phone=* or contact:phone=* use the international format.

This isn't your fault, as the editor you used really should have flagged it. I've restored it for you.

Oh, joy. In other words, is_in=* is dead, long live is_in=* ?

I'm sure that works very well in more sensible countries where the postal and administrative boundaries align. It would certainly make life easier for the Nominatim maintainers if it worked in the UK.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this (and all the benches in other changesets).

There's a specific tag in OSM if you want to add details of an inscription, inscription=* which might be a better fit here than description=*

Happy mapping!

Thanks for confirming - I've restored the building in changeset/176098426

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Could I jest check that you only meant to remove the tags relating to Oxford Centre for Innovation from the building between New Road and Tidmarsh Lane? You've deleted the whole building, but as long as it's still there I can easily undelete it.

If you're going to add separately mapped sidewalks, please could you remember to update the tagging on the parent street from sidewalk=both to sidewalk:both=separate ?

Thanks.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, deleting the turn restriction relations has the effect that they no longer apply to any transport mode, rather than having an exception for buses and taxis. Instead of deleting them, you could have changed the tag except=bus to except=bus;taxi

Do you know when Westminster City Council made the traffic order(s) changing these restricted turns from bus only to bus and taxi?

I see you've added separate sidewalks to a few streets in this area, but haven't changed the tagging on the parent street from sidewalk=both to sidewalk:both=separate

It's also a little unhelpful that footway=crossing ways extend to the intersection of the footway=sidewalk ways, rather than just to the kerb. As a result of this, when people survey this area using tools like StreetComplete, they will not be prompted to supply all the information about kerb height and tactile paving which could otherwise have been collected. Mapping pedestrian infrastructure while limiting the scope to record accessibility features does somewhat reduce its value for pedestrian, wheelchair and visually impaired routing.

As this appears to be an anonymous MapRoulette activity, I have no idea what the project instructions are, although there should be a link in the changeset tags.

* Sorry! You'd add bicycle:signed=yes as well as bicycle=no where there's an explicit and signed prohibition.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If you have a path which is tagged as highway=footway then adding bicycle=no and horse=no isn't necessary as that's implicit in the UK. It doesn't do any harm to add these tags, but they're unlikely to have any effect on routing software. The exception is where a prohibition is explicitly signed, in which case you can make this clear by also adding bicycle:signed=no (the StreetComplete surveying app does this).

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

(Review requested)

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, this edit deleted the tag ( man_made=survey_point ) from the trig pillar on Iping Common which tells data consumers what sort of map feature it is. I've reverted this in changeset/175945440

If you're making edits which don't relate to a particular HotOSM project, please change the auto-generated comment to reflect what you're actually doing. You may find osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments helpful.