How can a crossing between two traffic lights be "uncontrolled"?

node/7048005907

Please don't use the public OpenStreetMap database to record personal/private notes. I have reverted your edit.

If you want to add personal information on top of OpenStreetMap tiles, you could look at the uMap website:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/

Hello, @MKBE_'s latest sock puppet. How short is this temporary road closure?

Mis tagging all these signalised crossings as crossing=marked was particularly unhelpful. It's far more useful to a pedestrian, particularly a visually impaired one, to know what sort of crossing it is. Had you not done this, users of apps like StreetComplete might by now have added information about accessibility features like the presence or absence of sound and tactile indications.

Adding crossing:markings=yes is an iD-ism, but does it really help to tell data consumers that a marked crossing is marked, particularly when the crossing:markings=dots are clearly visible in aerial imagery.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Although redundantly adding oneway=no does no harm, roads in OSM are two way by default. If you are experiencing unexpected behaviour from routing software, this is unlikely to solve your problem.

oneway=*#oneway_=_no

I've reformatted the address and added your phone number, as well as adding office=company. You may wish to change this to a more appropriate value, see office=*

I am not convinced that the foot=no tag which you added to Highdown Rise in 2022 represents a real and explicitly signed prohibition either. That would make both Highdown Gardens and The Highdown unreachable on foot from Littlehampton Road. It would also make the pedestrian crossing over both carriageways of Littlehampton Road at the end of Highdown Rise a little pointless.

Adding non-existent restrictions in order to influence a single consumer of OSM data is likely to have adverse effects on other data consumers.
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_router

If I were determined to tick off Titnore Lane in CityStrides, I would probably wait for a Sunday morning in May-July and go out very early. I also use CityStrides and I do appreciate how frustrating it can be to have streets which are difficult to complete.

Are there really "pedestrians prohibited" signs (TSRGD diagram 625.1) at all entrances to this section of Titnore Lane, together with a traffic order implementing this?

Access tags like foot=no in OpenStreetMap are intended only to record the legal situation, not personal opinions on safety or convenience. If you wish to reduce the likelihood that pedestrian routers would use this route, adding the 60mph National Speed Limit might have been more useful.

access=*

The section of Titnore Lane between the access road to Swallows' Return and the pedestrian crossing island SW of St. Barnabas House has a pavement/sidewalk, so there is clearly no pedestrian prohibition here. I have updated this section in changeset/157408024

You have set Exley lane as access=private, which seems unlikely for a road serving the municipal Elland Cemetery.

The imagery which you have access to may be recent than the Bing street side imagery which I can see, but the entry point to Exley lane at (53.689760,-1.840510) has the following signage:

No motor vehicles except access (TSRGD diagram 619) next to the carriageway, which means motor_vehicle=destination NOT access=private

There is also a sign on the sidewalk/pavement indicating a shared pedestrian and cycle route, so bicycle=designated + foot=designated needs to be added.

What evidence do you have that this road is even privately owned, let alone private access?

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=53.689744%7E-1.840516&lvl=20.0&mo=om.1&pi=-5.2&style=x&dir=340.3

Is The Marld and its network of side streets really a private enclave (with locked gates, intercoms or security at all three entry points)?

The original access=permissive was probably wrong, but if it's signed as a "private road", then ownership=private + access=destination seems more likely.

Thanks for updating this and clearing my notes around the castle.

The Automated Edits Code of Conduct may disagree with you here.
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

"This policy also applies to substantial changes made using 'find and replace' or similar functions within standard editors such as JOSM."

"Even if you are going to change tagging of a large number of objects systematically and don't think that it is an automated edit which falls under this code of conduct, it is still a good idea to discuss your changes in advance."

Also, if you're just reducing the node count of objects, what is the reason for the ways which have been deleted and created in this changeset?

The geographical extent of this changeset makes it impossible to review the changes with QA tools like OsmCha.

When and where was this automated edit discussed?

I think you may have conflated the physical address of One American Acre with the address of its operator.

Is that address really recognised by USPS, for that specific location rather than a government office in DC? If it is, there may be a way to record it, but addr:* ought to be of some practical use in locating the object.

1) Please don't delete and replace OSM objects, as this loses the editing history.
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

2) The layer=* tag probably does not mean what you think it does. High Street

3) High Street's pedestrianised areas have signs prohibiting all vehicles (which includes bicycles) and additional signs explicitly and redundantly prohibiting bicycles. It CANNOT be a highway=cycleway. It's a pedestrianised street, which is literally what highway=pedestrian is for (as opposed to mis-tagging pavement/sidewalk areas so that they render on the map). This was explained in the comment I made on your earlier changeset:
changeset/157173227

The warning in iD about a highway crossing a railway didn't mean "just add a non-existent level crossing to make the warning go away". It was generated because the part of the footway you added over the bridge on Railway Street needs to be tagged as a bridge, like the adjacent highway, i.e. layer=1 + bridge=yes

No, it was correctly mapped by someone who had actually read the wiki:

"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, two-way turn lanes,
* by flush medians,
* or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."

osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

You didn't even tag the pretend separate carriageways as oneway=yes

Please stop tagging for the renderer, you're breaking things which you have not taken the trouble to understand.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Damn, sorry I missed that. Is there any chance you could edit the offending section of road so that it's fixed in tonights planet.osm extracts? I won't have access to a decent editor until tomorrow afternoon.

* times in the above tagging examples should of course be 17:30, not 19:30

None of those roads would ordinarily be tagged as highway=cycleway. They are pedestrianised streets, which is exactly what a highway=pedestrian way is intended to represent.

I concede that access on the section of High Street between Skinner Street was already poorly tagged in respect of access, but this is not an improvement.

Assuming that the signage in the Bing street side imagery is still current:

East of the junction with Skinner Street:
1) There is a TSRGD diagram 618.3B sign, "Pedestrian zone, no vehicles, except for loading midnight-10.30am 5.30pm-midnight, parking restricted at any time"
2) There is a TSRGD diagram 951 sign "Riding of pedal cycles prohibited" (arguably redundant redundant, as bicycles are vehicles and already prohibited by the first sign).
3) There is a TSRGD diagram 952 sign "One-way traffic"

West of the junction with King Street:
4) There is a TSRGD diagram 616 "no entry sign"
5) There is another 951 "Riding of pedal cycles prohibited"

The effect of this is that the correct tagging on that part of High Street should include:

oneway=yes
vehicle=no
vehicle:conditional=delivery @ (19:30-00:00;00:00-10:30)
parking:both=no
parking:right:restriction:conditional=loading_only @ (19:30-00:00;00:00-10:30)

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.387485%7E0.544781&lvl=20.3&mo=om.1&pi=7.2&style=x&dir=302.4
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.386826%7E0.54837&lvl=20.3&mo=om.1&pi=3.2&style=x&dir=268.1

I haven't reverted your changeset, as it is possible that access provisions have changed since the imagery was collected. Please can you confirm whether or not this is the case?