Geometry simplified in changeset/172067976

Looking at the edit history, it looks like the person who overcomplicated the geometry there was me. I think this was the first major road I'd to which I'd added separate sidewalks (for the unofficial Reverse London Marathon) and wouldn't do it quite like that now. Islands with staggered crossings and longer islands still need a carriageway split, but these didn't.

You're quite right, the geometry of that junction could do with simplification.

As the crossing island on East Smithfield is straight across rather than a staggered crossing, a carriageway split isn't really needed here. Having an unmarked crossing here with only a dropped kerb and tactile paving on one side does suggest some of the highway planners have an "interesting" approach to pedestrian safety here!

I'll update it later this afternoon, as there's also a missing HGV weight restriction on Thomas More Street.

You did, thank you.

I've added what I can using Bing's street side imagery in changeset/172063726

The crossings are visible on both Bing Maps street view and Mapillary, which have licences compatible with OSM (use of Google Maps/Street View is prohibited by their licence).

An example of relatively recent imagery for the Thomas More Street crossings is here:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/wasd42?lat=51.50859092482358&lng=-0.06912037297161078&z=18.581312534415048&pKey=274005104421719&focus=photo

The crossing details were also confirmed and updated by physical surveys by myself and @okwithmydecay, both local mappers.

Access tags in OSM like foot=no are intended to reflect actual legal restrictions rather than subjective opinions. In the UK, pedestrians have an absolute right to use highways unless explicitly prohibited (which requires legislation and a "pedestrians prohibited" sign).

Pedestrian routing software may use other OSM tags based on real properties of the road to assign a higher cost, including the 60mph speed limit which is already tagged. Other things which may be useful to add are the presence of sidewalks, verges, road width, lane count, whether it's lit, etc.

access=*

Reverted in changeset/172060354

(Review requested)

Unfortunately, you have disconnected Thomas More Street from East Smithfield, which would cause problems for routing software.

Everyone makes mistakes in OSM and this was easy to fix, so no harm has been done.

Reverted in changeset/172060354

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm afraid that you may have misunderstood how crossings work in OpenStreetMap. The definition of a crossing in OSM is a bit broader than just a marked or signalised crossing like a zebra, pelican, puffin, toucan, parallel, or pegasus crossing. There's more information about how crossings are mapped on the wiki, linked below.

The crossings over Thomas More Street at its junction with East Smithfield have lowered kerbs, yellow blister tactile paving and a crossing island. The crossing over the service road/driveway for Tower Bridge Business Centre also has modified kerbs and tactile paving. These have been explicitly designed as pedestrian crossings.

highway=crossing

Thanks for updating this.

If a road no longer has a number, it may be better to delete the ref=* tag, or change it to was:ref=* rather than using ref=Unclassified

If you've got access to GIS software, you might find that OS Open Roads is a useful resource for road names, numbers and official classifications
osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#OS_Open_Roads

Thanks!

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

Although adding bicycle=no etc. to footpaths tagged as highway=footway doesn't do any harm, it also doesn't really have any effect on routing software which uses OSM data. The implied access restrictions for a footway already exclude all other transport modes. If people are cycling on these paths, they probably haven't been sent that way as a result of access tagging in OSM.

There are times when it can be worth adding bicycle=no, particularly when this is made explicit by a sign. In this case you can also add bicycle:signed=yes (this is what the StreetComplete app does).

osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

Looking at the tags you've added in this changeset, I think there may be a couple of problems.

1) access=no + motor_vehicle=permit means that the road may not be used by *any* means of transport other than motor vehicles with a permit which "is ordinarily granted". This seems unlikely. You've added permit=residents, but if this really were the case the only access tags you'd need would be:
motor_vehicle=private + private=residents
I can't find any traffic orders which restrict access to Thorney Street. I'll be running nearby tomorrow and will check what signs (if any) are in place at Thorney Street's junctions with Millbank and Horseferry Road.

2) The tagging which you've used for parking restrictions was deprecated at the end of 2022. Please could you adapt this to the current scheme described at
osm.wiki/Street_parking

Thanks for resolving my note so quickly!

I've replaced the maxweight:hgv tag with maxweightrating:hgv which corresponds to that sign. If it had been a weak bridge sign, it would have been either maxweightrating (modern sign) or maxweight (pre-1994 sign).

changeset/171997927

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for resolving the note and updating the map.

The only suggestion I would make is that you replace the current access=no tag (no access for any transport mode) with foot=private and possibly private=residents (only pedestrians with explicit permission may use these paths). The general "access" restriction here can be replaced with "foot" because the footpaths are already mapped as highway=footway, which excludes other transport modes.

NB The edit you've made is fine as it is and won't cause any problems for data consumers, so there's no need for you to change anything. Hopefully my explanation of the tagging is of some use.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

While it might seem like a good idea to simply delete paths on private property (or in this case removing the highway=path tag), it's almost always better to use correct access tagging. The reasons for this are explained in detail at the links below.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

The highway=path tag has already been restored by another user in changeset/171893487

(Review requested)

The outline of the path looks fine, as it's from your own GPX file.

However you probably don't need to add an access=no tag here. If horses and bicycles are prohibited and it's pedestrian only, you could additionally tag it with horse=no and bicycle=no. Alternatively, you could replace highway=path with highway=footway and dispense with the access tags entirely. (NB This is just my opinion, what you have mapped isn't wrong and won't cause any problems for data consumers and you don't need to change anything.)

You might find the following useful
highway=path
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom
osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Sidewalk tagging restored in changeset/171492409

Hi,

With some of the crossings over cycle tracks parallel to the grove, you've removed some traffic_calming=table tags and changed some crossings from unmarked to marked.

The crossings which have a table or hump are marked with a solid white triangle on their approach(es) (TSRGD diagram 1062, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11#tgp2-tbl2-tbd1-tr33-tc2 (. This should be visible in aerial and street side imagery.

With the unmarked crossings, although the cycle track around the crossings has a blue surface (and should be tagged with surface=asphalt + surface:colour=blue), this extends beyond the crossing. The crossing itself is not marked, so visually impaired users have to rely on they yellow dimpled tactile paving on both sides.

Please bear on mind that existing mapping, while incomplete and with some errors, was done by local mappers and largely from in person surveys.

Is there any particular reason why you've changed the crossing nodes at the intersection of High Street North / Heigham Road / Burges Road from crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked?

The fact that they were determined to be button operated and have sound signals by two other users conducting surveys with StreetComplete strongly suggest that they're still the pelican crossings I first mapped in 2020. It's also impossible in the UK to have a button operated crossing with sound signals which is an unsignalised marked crossing.