Hi again, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. There is no reason why motor vehicles cannot be routed through a pedestrian area with the correct tags, however it is unusual for there to be no restrictions.

This certainly looks like a typical pedestrian street to me https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/31Dad9bVfm3PJGw9z-V1vQ

However your statement that it accessible to vehicles is only partly true, it is accessible to certain vehicles at certain times. It certainly should not be used for through routing. See https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/fWvsdJF_gvUihfXK1uuZ2g

Cheers Phil

Hi Ell
The first question has to be, do you know if they are they using openstreetmap data?

If they are, then whilst I would consider a router for motor vehicles passing a bollard to be an error, you could add motor_vehicle=no to the bollard and split the way and tag that as motor_vehicle=no.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

There was a bollard mapped, which prevents routing by motor vehicle but allowed routing for pedestrians an cyclists. By breaking the connection this is no longer usable by pedestrians or cyclists.

I have reverted this edits, or is there really no connectivity here?

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit is not quite correct.

The public highway was as previously mapped, the kerbs and pavements can be seen on bing imagery.

The part you have added should be mapped as highway=service, service=driveway.

Cheers Phil

Hi
If you are adding roads based on drivers feedback that suggests that this area is no longer construction.

Please spend an extra few seconds to improve the map beyond the basics of navigation. Other objects are important to the quality of the map.

Cheers Phil

Hi, just wondering what you were trying to achieve here?

The A50/515 roundabout was split due to bus route relations. By merging the ways the routes are no longer correct and need to be repaired.

Cheers Phil

Hi, thank you for these edits. Very useful.

In OSM highway=unclassified implies a normal minor road open to all traffic which contradicts the rights of way classification. In these cases it usual to use highway=service and tag as motor_vehicle=private as motor vehicle usage is only for access to adjoining properties.

In an international like OSM it is also helpful to clarify our quirky England/Wales access rules by being specific about access.

The application to upgrade to a restricted byway is interesting, whilst meeting a horsedrawn vehicle is extremely rare, it is a right horse people seem very keen on.

Cheers Phil

It should be a service road beyond where it was previously mapped. It is quite clear on bing imagery.

Cheers Phil

Has the building been demolished?

I imagine if Argo has closed then it is now an empty building. Please do not deleted tags which are still valid.

Cheers Phil

Hi, please be careful when removing closed businesses that you do not throw away still valid tags.

It is better to update as for example node/1097110333/history tags such as the address information will be valuable to mappers when it becomes something else. It is also nice to keep lifecycle history of what was there previously.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

The public highway ends where it was previously mapped. The section you have added is a service way on private land and should not be an extension of the highway.

Cheers Phil

Hi
I am wondering why you have deleted the station=site tag here?

Cheers Phil

It means that you can collect tickets that are already paid for.

Hi, this edit has added names to objects that are not named. The names of long distance routes belong on the relation and not on the individual way. The individual ways can very well have their own name or quite probably no name.

Cheers Phil

Hi, this edit has added names to objects that are not named. The names of long distance routes belong on the relation and not on the individual way. The individual ways can very well have their own name or quite probably no name.

Cheers Phil

Ah, got it. Had missed deleting the tags although this has been One Stop since at least 2011.
node/621354623/history

Cheers Phil

It is a One Stop as mapped, why are you even asking that question?

Cheers Phil

Hi, the route of way/913548853 looks a bit odd.

Much of it is in water and is unlikely to be the route you actually walked. Was there a bridge when you surveyed it?

Cheers Phil

> I used the streetlevel imagery to
> verify the bridleways from the West
> side but as above this might have
> changed since 2009.
The only streetlevel imagery sources we are allowed to use are https://www.mapillary.com and Bing Streetside, although bing streetside has no coverage in Shropshire. We absolutely must not use the other one.

> Does using the overlays on
> council website
We cannot use the data on the council website, it is overlaid on an OS map which taints it from a copyright perspective.

We can however use the data from https://www.rowmaps.com/ which are just the overlays that we can pull into OSM editors such as josm.

I use the council provided file from https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/SH/ as the processed versions loose information such as priorities, although I use this beyond OSM. We can use this to get path number (put them in prow_ref) and the designation. Again do not copy the geometry as it is often not the walked line which we map in OSM.

HTH Phil

Hi
We really should not be using the definitive map, it is based on OS maps which are copyright, and we cannot copy from them. Rights of way need to be added by survey. We aim to map the on the ground line rather than the legal line.

What do you mean by streetlevel imagery?

Cheers Phil