Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

According to Hertfordshire County Council's public right of way data and previous tagging, the full length of St Johns Lane east of the church is a public footpath. Regardless of other access or ownership considerations, public footpaths are tagged as foot=designated - they cannot be foot=private.

Has the legal status of Great Amwell FP 35 changed?

https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/herts/east-herts/great-amwell/

Thanks for connecting this.

If you're looking at other public rights of way in your area, you might find this resource helpful.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/sevenoaks/sevenoaks-rural/

Hi, just a quick question about this. The access tagging on the barrier node has bicycle=yes, but the note and changeset comment say that bikes are prohibited.

As far as I can tell from the traffic orders, only motor vehicles are prohibited in this LTN:
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4158081
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4452381

It might be worth adding traffic_intervention=modal_filter to the barrier node - see traffic_intervention=*

The other, more serious, problem with users adding short-term restrictions for roadworks as if they were permanent is when they don't bother to reverse it on reopening. Breaking motor vehicle routing unnecessarily for 6+ weeks was less than helpful.

Fixed in changeset/165837061

See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-removal-of-crossing-markings-yes-tags-introduced-in-undiscussed-automated-edits/129614

@Numbergod - I've commented on several of your changesets where it's abundantly clear that you accepted Rapid's (incorrect) suggestion without question. That is an undiscussed automated/mechanical edit. You have not had the courtesy to reply to any of my changeset comments, or made any attempt to fix any of the errors which you introduced.

(Review requested)

Thanks for updating this. I've made a little tweak to the address tags.

(Sorry, I see you've already done that! I must wait until the coffee has rebooted my brain before looking at OSM.)

(Review requested)

If you wanted to add the log itself, you could add a node (point) where it is on the track with the tags barrier=log + check_date=2025-04-30 (or whatever date you visited). The links below might be useful.

barrier=log
check_date=*
obstacle=*#Fallen_tree

Thank you! I'm sure it happens to every OSM contributor, it certainly has to me. Happy mapping.

In the iD editor you're using, you need to split the line which represents the road.

This is from the old help forum:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/64918/how-do-i-split-a-roadway-where-the-name-changes-using-the-id-editor

Is there now a 24/7 prohibition on motor vehicles, or there signed time restrictions?

The proposals made in 2021 were (in OSM format)
no @ (Mo-Fr 17:30-23:00; Sa-Su 11:00-23:00)
changeset/102015672

"Private Road" signs on an un-gated road do not mean private access, they mean that the road is not publicly maintained and that there is no right of way. In OSM, this is tagged with ownership=private. For roads signed "no through road", access=destination can be added. If through traffic is allowed, access=permissive is used.

Residents at the far end of Woodland Way would probably prefer it if deliveries, taxis and visitors can navigate beyond the junction with Higher Drive.

Updated in changeset/165579462

The Spinney isn't gated, so it's private ownership rather than private access. Changed to ownership=private + access=destination

Hi,

Looking at the aerial imagery, for example Ripley Close ( way/38394100 ), this is clearly a residential street not just parking access. Incorrectly changing almost every named residential street in the northern part of New Addington may have adverse effects on both correct routing and rendering.

Please refer to the relevant pages in the OSM wiki:

highway=service
"The highway=service tag denotes ways used for vehicle access to a building, parking lot, service station, business estate, beach, campsite, etc. Service ways are usually not part of the public street network and may sometimes be inaccessible to the general public"

highway=residential
"The highway=residential tag is used on roads that provide access to, or within, residential areas. While these roads typically allow through traffic, they are not normally used as through routes. Most traffic on a residential road will be for the access to, or from, residential properties."

Do you need any help reverting these changes?

The operator of St. Edmund's Church of England Primary School had been set incorrectly by another mapper as Kent County Council. That isn't your fault.

You accepted the tagging "upgrade" suggestion by Rapid that you change the operator:type from religious to government and added Kent County Council's Wikidata ref. Instead of fixing a problem caused by a tagging error, you chose to hide it instead of resolving the obvious contradiction.

Open data about schools in England is available from the government's "Get Information About Schools" service.
https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/130948

way/967534396

Please fix your error.

(Review requested)

Thanks for updating this. You'll also need to add shop=fishing so that data consumers know what it is - see shop=fishing

There are several sections of the A429 Bearsted Road which had been tagged in error with crossing=no.

Rapid suggested that you add crossing:markings=no + crossing:signals=no, which you did without considering whether this could be correct (no, it couldn't). This didn't fix the problem, but it might have hidden it from someone else.

If you're unquestioningly accepting every suggested tagging "upgrade", you're not "fixing various issues", you're effectively making an automated/mechanical edit of questionable value.

The number of objects edited in each changeset also makes it hard to find how many errors are hidden amongst the hundreds of correct tagging suggestions.

Bearsted Road actually fixed in
changeset/165371890

I haven't spotted any mass deletions of buildings, which hopefully would be flagged by OSMCha. If there are any areas where you're reasonably sure you added buildings which are now missing, it should be possible to find out - see osm.wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example#OSM_data_at_a_certain_date

Apart from "the editor suggested it and you did it without question", why did you delete crossing=unmarked here? Not only is aerial imagery available showing that there aren't any crossing markings, but unlike you, I've actually been there and surveyed it.

node/9926313735