There was no need to delete almost all the tags from that section of Oxford Street. Reverted in changeset/154340980

I've added a note and a fixme for a local mapper to check whether this is now two way for all vehicles, or just for buses.

There's no evidence from Bing aerial or street side imagery that this is really one way. Reverted.

Thanks. I meant to come back and check on progress there, but didn't quite get round to it. I've closed the associated notes.

I'm not convinced that busmiles would endorse breaking routing for everyone else. I'm also pretty sure that the three "BUS ONLY" markings on the approach visible in aerial imagery are not graffiti.

Reverted in changeset/154331528

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You don't need to add house numbers using the name tag, because they are not names and they are already tagged (and displayed on the map) with addr:housenumber

name=*#When_not_to_use

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Although adding oneway=no to a road is harmless, it doesn't actually change anything as that is the default for roads. There are cases where it can be helpful, as explained in the OSM wiki.
oneway=*

If you are experiencing problems with routing software, this may not solve them unless the router is badly broken. If it does, there is always the chance that another mapper will remove the oneway=no tag as unnecessary in the future. If you need help, it may be worth asking in the OSM Community Forum.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

(already reverted by other users)

Setting access=yes on the road to Imber is not only incorrect, but is incredibly irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Reverted.

Thanks. I was about to post something to the forum, but as you do tact and diplomacy infinitely better than I do...

I DO know, and access=yes is not the correct way to tag a pedestrian zone which prohibits motor vehicles and had a signed list of exceptions.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=50.906948%7E-1.404601&lvl=21.3&mo=om.1&pi=-2.8&style=x&dir=351.5

* look at this user again, I mean

@SomeoneElse perhaps you'd like to look at this user with your DWG hat on?

No, deleting a residential driveway does not make it "more accurate". Reverted.

What has a poor innocent private residential driveway ever done to deserve the busmiles approach to random access tagging? Reverted.

@Spaghetti Monster because users of Busmiles have a Discord group where they discuss how to tag for the renderer so that their bus journeys logged on that site "snap" to OpenStreetMap.

They rarely take the trouble to understand what OSM access tags actually mean, do not respond to changeset comments and do not care that their edits have adverse consequences for real-World users of OSM data.

IMHO any changeset which mentions busmiles and misapplies access tags should be reverted immediately and the user reported to DWG.

Ideally, Busmiles would start using bus route relations instead of doing undisclosed and uncredited routing with OSM data. Failing that, executing 'rm -rf ./' from the root of their source tree would be great.

No, not more accurate. This looks suspiciously like more tagging for the renderer

Please read the documentation, particularly the part which states that in the UK, highway=trunk applies to "Primary A road (green signs)". This section of the A413 has white signs and was correctly mapped as highway=primary.

highway=trunk

Reverted, obviously. changeset/154262968

No, not more accurate. There is no physical separation of carriageways at this junction, so your edit was tagging for the renderer. Please read the linked wiki page.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Reverted in changeset/154262371

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I am not sure what you were trying to do here, but you have inadvertently removed the place=town tag from the node (point) representing Biggin Hill. I have restored this.

Were you trying to add a scout campsite and if so is there anything I can do to help you?

I've reverted all of @Lewwy's changesets from 2024-07-21 and sent an email to DWG about Busmiles users attempting to tag for the renderer.

@jpennycook and @Mateusz Konieczny - these edits and similar misguided changes to access tagging have been made because @Lewwy and others want their journeys recorded on https://busmiles.uk/ to "snap" to OpenStreetMap. It's effectively mapping for the renderer, although the Busmiles website is a little short on information about how it uses OSM data (a credit beyond that shown via Leaflet.js would be nice). It would help if Busmiles used bus route relations where its users could make genuine and useful contributions to OSM data. Instead of this, we have wild stabs in the dark at access tagging, possibly encouraged by discussion on the Busmiles Discord server.