Please leave a meaningful changeset comment.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Are ALL of these roads explicitly signed as pedestrians prohibited (TSRGD diagram 625.1)? Can you provide any links to the relevant traffic orders?

The crossings mis-tagged as marked with dashes have now been fixed.

When you mis-tagged node/2177844432 as crossing:markings=ladder, did it occur to you that the correct tagging for a *zebra* crossing might be crossing:markings=zebra. They're quite common in the UK, as zebra crossings were invented here in 1951. We don't have ladder markings on crossings of public highways in the UK, they wouldn't be legal.

If you don't understand he existing tagging and don't understand the road markings you're looking at, please don't add nonsense to the map.

Please revert.

Please tag crossings correctly.

You've added some uselessly decorative sidewalks which provide no pedestrian routing benefit whatsoever.

You have also mis-tagged unmarked crossings as crossings marked with dashes because you cannot tell the difference between UK give way road markings and legalcrossing markings in the UK.

Please revert.

Also, don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked. These crossings were mapped correctly by local mappers who knew and cared what they were doing.

You have marked a crossing node (node/12055778699) with crossing:markings=dashes. It's obvious from the Bing aerial imagery that the crossing is unmarked.

The dashes next to the crossing are give way road markings and have nothing whatsoever to do with the crossing.

If you do not understand the UK road markings at which you are looking, please don't add wildly incorrect guesses to the map.

PS Did this #LondonWalkabout actually involve you physically walking around London? If it did, then the changeset source should include "survey".

ON the South side of Longford Street, you have drawn a sidewalk which crosses over the kerb line which was already mapped. Rapid warned you about this, yet you still uploaded.

You also added a pedestrian crossing on Osnaburgh Street which was between the give way node and the centre of the crossroads. The crossing node had already been mapped in the correct place as node/8908418097

I have cleaned up your mess on this occasion, but if you persist in making low quality edits and ignoring existing mapping, this will be referred to the Data Working Group.

Incidentally, if you are taking part in organised mapping, you MUST follow the Organised Editing Guidelines.

If you're adding separate sidewalks, please could you also update the sidewalk tagging on the parent street from (e.g.) sidewalk=both -> sidewalk:both=separate ?

Thanks.

It depends on the size of the car park and the inclinations of the individual mapper.

If a car park serving a block of flats or commercial building is clearly visible on the aerial imagery, my inclination would be to map it and tag access appropriately.

Most people wouldn't usually map private parking in a paved over front garden.

If there's a gate, you can add a node on the driveway and tag with barrier=gate + access=private + locked=*
barrier=gate

The only valid reason to delete trails is that they don't exist. At present, your reason is no better than "because I say so", which is inadequate.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Deleted in line with whose "policy"?

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

The OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer suggests that it belongs to Ashlar Court, so I have undeleted it and tagged it as access=private + private=residents

If the car park is shared with East Finchley Baptist Church, it and the access roads would need be tagged with access=customers

Thanks. We've got far too many decorative sidewalks in London. At least people adding these don't bother to add sidewalk:$side=separate either.

If the reopened paths are permissive bridleways, as the tagging suggests, they might be better tagged as:

highway=bridleway
horse=permissive
bicycle=permissive
foot=permissive

If they're used by NT's estate vehicles, you could add motor_vehicle=private.

The access=yes tag isn't necessary and with the current tagging, would actually mean that horse-drawn vehicles have a legal right to use these paths (obviously it's unlikely that anyone would try this).

If you use highway=bridleway, highway=cycleway, or highway=footway instead of highway=path, these render as green, blue and red dotted lines respectively in the default OSM-Carto tiles.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding these restrictions.

As residents can easily obtain permits for visitors, could I suggest tagging the filters with something like:

access=private
private=residents
motor_vehicle=permit
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
traffic_intervention=modal_filter

(The current tagging prohibits pedestrians and cyclists)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've changed the POI type from shop=supermarket to craft=scaffolder.

osm.wiki/Tag%3Acraft%3Dscaffolder

Please do add some commentary!

While INSPIRE IDs do strictly speaking apply to the whole extent of the property, the same could be said to of the UPRN and even the postal address.

Where there is only one addressable building within an INSPIRE polygon (a single freehold property) and only a single UPRN, then I feel that in those cases the building can stand as a proxy for the whole property.

I'm not committed to including INSPIRE IDs, but if there isn't strong opposition I'd be inclined to include them as the link between INSPIRE ID, UPRN and postal address is something for which HM Land Registry charges a £20k/year subscription.

I saw you mentioned it on another changeset and meant to download it. Thanks for the reminder - I've downloaded it and will give it a go shortly.

Slightly related to this, I'm drafting a proposal to import postcodes from ONSUD, UPRNs and INSPIRE IDs.
osm.wiki/Proposed_import_of_UK_postcodes,_UPRNs_and_INSPIRE_IDs_(England_%26_Wales)