To summaries the effect of this and other edits: the part of Rookes Way bringing traffic from London Road to West Berkshire Community Hospital now has:
* a requirement that cyclists dismount
* was 1 lane, but is now of unknown width
* was lit, but now has unknown lighting status
* had a 40mph speed limit, but now has an unknown speed limit
* was one way, but is now bidirectional
* had an asphalt surface, but the surface is now unknown
* is forbidden to ALL motor vehicles except buses and PSVs

None of these changes can be justified, but making the hospital apparently inaccessible to drivers approaching from London Road is NOT an acceptable side effect of trying to make your journeys on busmiles look prettier.

The problem with the suggested approach is that the bus and psv keys are not synonyms, nor are the values yes and designated. PSVs include vehicles other than buses and there needs to be some evidence that the access restriction or exemption *really* applies to all PSVs and not just buses.

If busmiles doesn't work with the bus tag alone, that is a problem for their developers rather than a reason to break OSM. You are not the first busmiles user to add psv tags or to misunderstand what motor_vehicle=designated means.

People use OSM data for real-world routing applications, so misapplying access tags can cause more significant inconvenience than failing to snap a bus route to a map.

Bus routes can be accurately represented in OSM using route relations. It would be a lot more helpful if busmiles used these rather than interfering with access tags which people have taken the effort to map and survey accurately. e.g. Bus 1C: Newbury Wharf => Thatcham => Newbury Wharf
relation/17716750

Buses were already allowed through. Adding motor_vehicle=designated means that ALL motor vehicles are now allowed through.

These were already tagged as bus=yes. If a road is already tagged with bus=yes and busmiles does not do what you expect, please take this up with the busmiles developers rather than adding unnecessary psv=designated tags to OSM.

Traffic calming tags can be added to the entire length of a highway segment if they are not mapped as individual nodes on the highway. Please do not delete the tag from the highway unless you have also mapped the individual traffic calming features as nodes.

traffic_calming=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I notice you have used the value "designated" for several access tags. Is your understanding of this tag that the highway is only for designated vehicles of that class? If so, the tag value you probably want is private or permit.

A road tagged with e.g. motor_vehicle=designated means that it is designated for use by ALL motor vehicles.

For example, this section of service road leading off the Eastrop Roundabout has had the tags
foot=yes + motor_vehicle=designated + psv=yes
added to the existing tagging of
vehicle=private + bus=yes + taxi=yes

The sign in the available Bing street side imagery is TSRGD diagram 617, prohibiting all vehicles except taxis and service vehicles. Unless this sign has been changed, the access tags should be only this:
vehicle=private + taxi=yes
(buses and other PSVs are not exceptions and no assertion can be made about foot access)

way/190893357
https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.527503%7E-0.161855&lvl=19.1&mo=om.1&pi=-1.4&style=x&dir=232.8

The reason why changing highway=footway to highway=path can be problematic is that the default access for footway is clear (foot=yes, bicycle etc. = no). With highway=path, this ceases to be well-defined.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Thanks for updating this. You could also add the tag prow_ref="White Notley FP 13" to capture the ref.

This tool might be useful if you're mapping your local public rights of way:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/braintree/white-notley/

Please don't change highway=footway to highway=path unless there's a really good reason to do so. If you think the original mappers made a mistake, you probably haven't understood their intent or the tagging.

Thanks for spotting that, should have been yes to both. Fixed in changeset/154161336

How did adding a 5t weight limit when the signed HGV weight limit is 7.5t "improve" the street network, exactly?

That shouldn't be a problem, then. There's no need to prove existence via an external source, just your personal experience (source=survey or source=local_knowledge) is fine.

If the name tags is how they present it, I'd say that's fine. Adding name:en, like name:zh just makes it easier for data consumers. As for addr:unit, you'll still be discovering new tags or ways to tag things years later :-)

For food premises, you can often find additional information including addresses from the Food Hygiene Rating Service (FHRS), which is licensed under the OSM-friendly Open Government Licence. New premises can take a while to show up, but the FHODOT tool makes using the data easier:
https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhodot/?lat=51.54235&lon=-0.14233&zoom=17&layer=fhrs

The tagging looks OK to me, although you could move the unit to addr:unit and add a name:en for just the English name.

What could be a problem is giving Google Maps as a source, as their copyright is incompatible with OpenStreetMap.

No problem, already updated.

Thanks for adding sidewalks and crossings in London, btw.

The crossings you tagged with crossing:markings=dashes are unmarked crossings and should be tagged as crossing:markings=no. Pedestrian crossings on public highways in the UK are not marked with dashes.

The dashed lines adjacent to those crossings are give way markings. They have nothing to do with pedestrian crossings.

Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked unless you are absolutely certain that the crossing is not controlled by traffic signals.

I've repaired the ASL and kerb nodes which you inadvertently dragged by several hundred metres. Please be more careful, as OSM is actually used for real World vehicle and pedestrian routing.

changeset/154098993

Hi,

I noticed that you added ref=C993 to Round Coppice Road. Unless this number is explicitly signposted, this should be changed to official_ref=C993.

Are you able to confirm that the licence of the SABRE Roads website is compatible with OpenStreetMap?

osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom#Tagging_road_numbers

If Osprey Drive becomes a footpath beyond where the residential road ends, you could map that section as highway=footway rather than just truncating the road.

Can you remember what source you used to set access=destination on Melina Place? All I can see is a "no through road" sign (TSRGD diagram 816) and there's nothing to imply that the street is privately owned.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.529324%7E-0.176072&lvl=20.8&mo=om.1&pi=-10.9&style=x&dir=232.6