Reverted in changeset/157156679

This and subsequent edits to the junction of High Street and Queens Avenue deleted traffic calming information and mapped a lane without physical separation as a separate way.

Reverted in changeset/157156679

Reverted in changeset/157156679

Reverted in changeset/157156679

Reverted in changeset/157156197

Reverted in changeset/157156102

Reverted in changeset/157156042

For areas like this, an alternative is to map the area as area:highway=footway together with a linear highway=footway through the centre. Although pedestrian areas are rendered on the "default" OSM Carto map tiles, they're really intended for areas where routing should be omnidirectional rather than linear (although it doesn't actually work with many routers). Although area:highway=footway isn't rendered by OSM Carto, it is by some 3D renderers.

If you add a footway for a pavement, you'd need to add footway=sidewalk to it and sidewalk:*=separate to the parent road.

area:highway=footway
highway=pedestrian#How_to_map
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

If you've set access=private, you don't really need to set private for other transport modes, as the access tag applies to all transport modes. It doesn't need to be changed, as the extra tags don't have any effect.

Is there an OSM-compatible source for which (if any) of the streets in Britannia Village have since been adopted by Newham?

Thanks for confirming.

Iron Square was originally tagged (not by you) as access=private, which would have been correct during construction.

I've added ownership=private, but if it isn't gated it should probably be access=destination so that it's reachable by routing software.

Thanks for updating this.

Although the restaurant has closed, the building will still be there.

Rather than deleting a closed business, an alternative is to change the name tag to old_name, use a lifecycle prefix on the "main" tag (in this case amenity=restaurant) and remove the tags which applied only to the closed business. You could also add a check_date tag if appropriate.

The advantages of doing this are that the history of the object is preserved and users of apps like StreetComplete will be prompted to check if there is a new business operating there.

I've undeleted the building and updated the tags in way/487028114

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
check_date=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding your business.

There are a couple of things you might want to change:

1) position - you are unlikely to be in the middle of the junction of Balloch Road/Ardoch Road and POIs which are "obviously" in the wrong place might get deleted by other mappers

2) business type - data consumers will probably process office=fence_supply_shop as if it were office=yes. If it's your office location, then office=company might be the best fit. If it's the location of a physical shop which customers can visit, you may want to add a shop tag.
office=*
shop=*#Do-it-yourself,_household,_building_materials,_gardening

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to tags so that they will be parsed correctly by data consumers.

Based on a complete misunderstanding of what the tags mean.

Could this do with foot=permissive as well, assuming that it's private land?

Thanks for adding these, but please bear in mind a couple of things, which are also in the MapWithAI instructions for this task:

1) "Once you have mapped a section of sidewalk, you should add a tag to the adjacent road to inform OpenStreetMap whether a sidewalk exists next to that road and which sides it is on. You can do that by applying one of the following sidewalk:both=separate, sidewalk:left=separate, sidewalk:right=separate to the adjacent road. If no sidewalk exists, you can use sidewalk=no."

2) Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked, as that removed information useful to pedestrian routers. By all means add crossing:markings=dots and crossing:signals=yes. If you see a crossing in the UK marked with dots and there's a solid white stop line adjacent to it, it's very, very unlikely that it is anything other than crossing=traffic_signals + crossing:markings=dots + crossing:signals=yes.

Although the iD editor and derivatives like Rapid suggest it, there's no point adding crossing:markings=yes, as this rather pointlessly tells data consumers that "this marked crossing is marked".

I've fixed the tagging errors with crossings and added sidewalk tags to the parent roads in changeset/156987362

Reverted.

Vandalism reverted in changeset/156980950

osm.org/user_blocks/16700