Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

Are these roads privately owned, but with access for deliveries and visitors and no thoroughfare? If this is the case, the tags you might want are:

access=destination
ownership=private

The iD editor presents access tags for other transport modes as if they were necessary, but you can and should leave them unset if the general access value already describes the situation,

There's limited street side imagery for The Drive and none for Pine Trees Drive, but the Bing Street Side imagery shows a non-standard weight limit sign at the junction with Swakeleys Road, which isn't legal on a public highway.

Reverted in changeset/146608359 in order to restore the data before geofabrik.de extracts are generated.

#DWG

Please could you supply a more coherent explanation for this reversion than "erróneo"?

There are no comments on the original changeset and nothing to suggest in any way that the original mapper's sources were not as described.

¿Podría darnos una explicación más coherente para esta reversión que "erróneo"?

No hay comentarios sobre el conjunto de cambios original y nada que sugiera de ninguna manera que las fuentes del mapeador original no fueran como se describen.

(traducción a través de Google, disculpas por cualquier error)

You appear to have tagged a section of Beechen Grove and Exchange Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

I wonder how many of these were introduced as a result of iD's policy of presenting inexperienced users with a list of access tags irrelevant to the highway=* type?

Is this a new physically separated cycle track, created after June 2020?

From the Bing aerial and street side imagery available, this appears to be a mandatory cycle lane (with solid white line) and is already mapped with the cycleway:left=lane tag on the road.

Does this image represent the current situation?
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1066735230519834

Thanks - I meant to have a look at that last year when I came across it in Capital Ring-related edits.

No problem, I've restored it to its original position. I believe it's quite easy to accidentally drag a node in the iD editor.

You appear to have dragged the POI for ZERO (node/9700839520) from a building on Friary Street to the centre of Mill Lane. What were you trying to do here?

Google Maps must not be used as a source as the copyright and terms are incompatible with OSM.

osm.wiki/Google

After searching in The Gazette (published under the OSM-compatible Open Government Licence), the only relevant restriction is from traffic orders made by London Borough of Lambeth in August 2023 ( https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4424576 ). The relevant provisions are:

(2) Ban motor vehicles with exemptions for pedal cycles, emergency vehicles, and vehicles with a valid dispensation via the use of CCTV enforcement:

(f) The Lyham Road / Dumbarton Road / Chale Road junction, from the north-eastern corner to the south-western corner, requiring compulsory left turns from Chale Road into Lyham Road and Dumbarton Road into Lyham Road, and compulsory right turns from Lyham Road into Dumbarton Road and Lyham Road into Chale Road;

This LTN/modal filter restriction was already mapped in August 2023 ( changeset/140983494 ). As there appears to be no evidence from an OSM-compatible source that motor vehicles are prohibited on Chale Road between Kingswood Road and Lyham Road, I have reversed your edit in changeset/146369900

Unfortunately, the "pin" which you have moved was the surveyed address for an individual house which had not yet been split.

I am not sure why delivery companies should deliver to locations tagged with addr:street=Elsham Road from Holland Road.

The houses on the NE side of Elsham Road have now been split and the address data merged in changeset/146366095

Broomwood close already had access=private (added by you in June), which applies to all travel modes. Adding bicycle=no does no harm, but it also has no real effect. What was the problem you were trying to solve here?

access=*

I'll add postcodes and UPRNs to the split buildings in the next day or two.

The kink in way/1084067488 looks a bit sharper than it should, but it's where a short single lane section changes to one traffic lane + a parking lane. The line vehicles follow does not really deviate here, but the centre of the carriageway does.

Thanks. I should have set a reminder to clear those once the permanent traffic order came into force.

Can I assume that you are a busmiles.uk user, trying to make your journeys as displayed on that website correspond to the actual routes?

As far as I can tell, busmiles.uk does not use OSM data to produce bus routes to overlay on OSM Carto map tiles. If it did, OSM would be credited as a data source at https://busmiles.uk/legal

Please DO NOT make edits to OSM access tags if you do not understand them, in order to try to influence the representations of journeys on a third party website.

Your edits will not affect the representation of journeys on busmiles.uk, but they will adversely affect real world users of OpenStreetMap data.

In this case, Wood Street was already tagged with access=no + bus=yes + psv=yes + bicycle=yes. The sign at its junction with Horse Fair is TSRGD Diagram 953 "Route for use by buses, pedal cycles and taxis only", so taxi=yes is missing.

Incorrectly adding motor_vehicle=designated grants access to ALL motor vehicles, which will break routing applications which actually use OpenStreetMap data and attempt to send vehicles along a route where they are prohibited. It's tantamount to vandalism.

This changeset and all other changesets where you have edited access tags will be reverted shortly.

Hi, thanks for adding this. It has already been mapped, but unfortunately does not render on the standard OSM Carto map tiles.

I have deleted the POI you added as a duplicate and added the tag tourism=attraction to the existing object, which may help.

Not being rendered on the map is not a problem shared with hedge mazes, as we can map the hedges in addition to the bounding polygon and the hedges are rendered.

way/393397210

osm.wiki/Mazes

Thanks. I suspect that @maxfranks and @SophiaD123 may be the same vandal, so they'll probably be back again.

osm.org/user_blocks/15563

This is already mapped as way/33791262

No problem. I think the way the quest is presented could be improved for the situation in the UK.

You appear to have tagged sections of Chessington Road and the B284 roundabouts as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.