(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this. It looks fine to me.

No problem, thanks for getting back to me.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, your edit dragged a fence and a tree row across other map features. Reverted in changeset/163523175

I've uploaded the trace as @rskedgell/traces/11784266

Thanks! Traffic planners like to make things challenging for mappers :-)

I'll be doing a few more updates this week, roughly following the route of Sunday's half marathon, while it's till fresh in my memory.

Hi, just a quick reminder that sidewalk=separate applies only when there the separate sidewalk is drawn as a footway in OSM. If there is a sidewalk separated by a verge, but not drawn separately, the tagging you probably want is sidewalk=both + verge=both

It's great for our older housing stock. I've tended to add source:addr:housenumber=NLS... or interpolation, in case actual street surveys find that houses have been renumbered. That's partly buildings being subdivided, but also renumbering when roads have been renamed.

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

The only thing I might change would be to split the roads where they pass through/under buildings, using the tag tunnel=building_passage rather than layer=-1. Therese more information at tunnel=building_passage

Could I ask you about access on roads within the development? If there's a gate at the entrance from the public part of Lisgar Terrace and visitors/taxis/delivery vehicles need to be let in, then the current access=private is fine. If visitors can just drive in, then ownership=private + access=destination might be a better fit.

(Review requested)

Thanks for spotting this and updating the map.

I've made a couple of additional tweaks, including adding highway=crossing nodes where the path intersects the A264 and adding the "!" hazard signs on the carriageway - see changeset/163314419

Hopefully the crossing nodes will help the navigation applications which you use will do something useful with the tags on the carriageways (particularly maxspeed=70 mph + expressway=yes). You may have to wait a couple of weeks for their systems to update.

Please don't map for the renderer by adding pretend dual carriageway segments where no physical lane separation exists.

See osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are *not* to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines, hatched areas, channelized turn lanes, two-way turn lanes, by flush medians, or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."

Hi,

The tactile_paving=yes tag has a different meaning on nodes and ways. On a way, it means that tactile paving exists for the full length of the way, which is *never* the case on a pedestrian crossing of a public highway anywhere in the UK.
tactile_paving=*#Use_on_ways

I've also undeleted way/1322148795. Please do not delete objects which exist and have been added by other mappers.

Creating dual carriageways where there is no physical separation between the lanes is mapping for the renderer. Please do not do this. If TomTom wish to represent unsegregated traffic lanes separately, that should be accomplished in TomTom's own rendering and routing software, not OSM-Carto.

See osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are not to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines, hatched areas, channelized turn lanes, two-way turn lanes,
by flush medians, or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."

Fixed in changeset/163278990

Thanks, that looks fine to me.

Please don't map for the renderer by creating non-existent sections of dual carriageway, as you have done on Cherry Blossom to the North of its junction with Tomalin Drive.

While you may feel that it looks better on the map when a non-existent split is introduced, not following established mapping conventions can impact other data consumers.

From osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are not to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated

by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines[1], hatched areas, channelized turn lanes[2], two-way turn lanes[2],
by flush medians[3],
or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding the building.

The ref tag on a post box refers to its unique reference number. If you wish to add its postcode, you can use the postal_code tag.

The addr:postcode is only used for addressable features on the map, which you correctly used for the building you added. For things like post boxes, postal_code is used.

I've restores the ref in
changeset/163189209

See also:
amenity=post_box
https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/

It's not formally unnamed, as it has Designated Street Name USRN 37011041 and it's recorded in OS Open Names as "Church Path". If "Diagon Alley" is the local nickname, it would go into the loc_name tag.

If there is a 10% incline on part of the path, it might be better to split it and apply the incline to just that section.

How does the path cross the stream flowing through the woods - is there a bridge?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Access restrictions in OSM, like the bicycle=* tag, apply to legal restrictions. In the UK, use_sidepath does not apply as cyclists use roads by absolute right (unless explicitly prohibited by a traffic order with accompanying signage). In some other jurisdictions, cyclists are required to use a cycle track if provided, which is what this tag conveys.

The tagging on this section of Prestwick Road which would describe the situation is cycleway:left=separate + sidewalk:left=separate (left is in relation to the direction in which the road was drawn in OSM).

bicycle=use_sidepath
cycleway=separate

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this.

For a short-term closure with a duration of weeks or months, it is probably better to use a conditional restriction rather than motor_vehicle=no (or access=no, or changing the road to highway=construction).

This is because some routing software only updates weekly or monthly, so with a monthly update the worst case could potentially result in the software assuming that the road is open now, but closed for a month after the roadworks have finished.

If the road closure was until 9th March you could use this, obviously amending the end date as appropriate.

motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (2025 Feb 28-2025 Mar 09)

There's more information at
osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions
and a discussion of a longer road closure in the community forum at
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/a25-sinkhole-road-closure/126177

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

While it may be frustrating when people trespass, the best way to deal with this in OSM is to set the correct access tags, in this case access=private, to the path. The problem with deleting existing features is that they tend to get re-added, without any access restrictions, causing the problem to recur.

Many maps show private paths, tracks and roads, including Ordnance Survey and Google. These maps may not make the fact that it is private explicit, but OSM does.

There is more detailed information on the OSM Wiki here
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

I have reinstated the path and made it private in changeset/163049053

(Review requested) You have just added SEO spam into a changeset comment and inserted an unrelated node into a public transport route relation. Reverted.