Hi, just found this after reading the Guardian Article.

The cinema tag seems a bit wrong is it not?

Cheers Phil

Thank you for fixing

Hi, this changeset has gone badly wrong. Whilst Doodle Alley may be a dead end for vans, it is most certainly not a dead end for all modes using OSM. The fact it was joined in the first place should has set the brain cells going. The solution is clearly visible on mapillary which you have sait you were using https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2934782316802733
Generally objects in OSM are more likely mistagged rather than added in error.

Rather than deleting, you should have thought beyond your usecasespent a few minutes checking available sources and in this case converted to a cycleway.

Cheers Phil

There is a separately mapped footway here, therefore the correct tag is sidewalk=separate, no is incorrect.

Cheers Phil

Whilst this edit is not technically wrong, walking is not illegal, it would be better not to tag foot=yes here, A case of let sleeping dogs lie.

Cheers Phil

Hi, I am not sure when you surveyed these roads, but there is no shoulder along this stretch of the A5.

Cheers Phil

Whoops I had. not sure how. The bridleway to Moss Lane had been par of the relation and had intended to just remove it.

Fixed in relation/7708228

Cheer Phil

Hi Ian
Thank you for your edits, however the access tagging you have used is a bit strange as it prevents use of bridleways on foot and bike which is how a bridleway is defined in England and Wales. If you are going to tag them as access=private you do need to also include foot=designated and bicycle=yes.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Are you sure that Tesco doesn't open until 08:00, seems very late.

Cheers Phil

Hi
Stone is a very odd material for a gate, I would have thought the obvious fix for wod would be wood.

Cheers Phil

Hi, I am a bit confused by this changeset. Has the coastal path really been routed along the road as other than OSM I can find no other source for this change.

Cheers Phil

Thank you, I was using some old images but have since spotted it has gone.

I really need to go and survey The Salopean :)

I am a bit confused by this one, I have never found a corridor here.

You can cut through shops, but it would be wrong to route pedestrians that way.

Cheers Phil

Thank you.

However I am not basing my views on imagery and that it appears ok. They are based on real world experience and local knowledge which is the gold standard in osm. This section of road is fun :)

Cheers Phil

Simply tagging it as motor_vehicle=discouraged is adequate, it is afterall a public highway and no narrower than many other roads in the area. It is afterall the responsibility of a driver to not blindly follow their satnav.

This road is absolutely fine for cars, and
is one where I wonder about the real reason for the signs.

We should not map for the renderer, or in this case router. They should be able to consume this tag, it is wrong to choose tags based on what routers support.

Cheers Phil

motor_vehicle=discouraged would be a better tag although it is one of those places where you wonder why the sign is there. A hgv would.struggle, but its fine in a car.
Cheers Phil

You seem to have lost the highway tag on 480061272.

The tag service=alley is a very odd way to describe way/120282236 which is correctly described as highway=unclassified is it not?

It is very definitely closed and part of the construction site although the building looks to be being retained.

Where precisely did you source the care home details from?

Cheers Phil

Has way/1034146531 reopened?

It closed several years ago and last time I went by it was boarded up.

Cheers Phil