Hello. I had reverted your previous changeset, based on my comment here: changeset/167137992
Let me know if you think it makes sense. Thanks.

Hi. Oxford is already the main "name" tag, so this doesn't add anything. I suppose the previous short_name could have been helpful in some searches which are able to take the area into account (Railway Station, Oxford).

Hi. The church was demolished more than a century ago. The surviving tower is not a place of worship.

Hi. Welcome to OSM! And thanks for your contribution.

When uploading a changeset, please use the comment description to inform others on what you did. Writing "hi" is not helpful.

For more information, please see: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
The wiki contains other helpful pages for a new mapper.

Thanks. Best wishes.

Hi. Is there any physical barrier remaining?
If not, both barrier=gate and the bollard tags should be removed. Maybe a traffic chocker?
The little segment now tagged as a bridleway should also be a normal road (with the appropriate access tags).

Grazie.

A riguardo, ci sono tre aspetti principali che possono essere descritti nei tag di OpenStreetMap:
1. Il tipo di edificio fisico, ad esempio building=hut, building=cabin, building=house.
2. Il tipo di servizio offerto, per esempio tourism=alpine_hut (per un rifugio gestito da personale), tourism=wilderness_hut (per un rifugio/bivacco senza personale), tourism=chalet (per un bed & breakfast che si può affittare su prenotazione).
3. A chi è accessibile, quindi access=yes o access=private.
(Poi tag aggiuntivi possono descrivere altre caratteristiche o servizi offerti).

Questa Baita Nòva quindi funziona ancora come "wilderness_hut" (rifugio senza personale), ma ad uso esclusivo privato e non aperta al più ampio pubblico (quindi access=private).
Altri rifugi descritti con access=private sono disponibili al pubblico, ma bisogna chiedere le chiavi.
Si può dire che la differenza fra una "wilderness_hut" ad uso privato, e una baita completamente privata (ad esempio in un alpeggio, o una seconda casa in montagna) può essere sottile. Comunque ora sembra descritta accuratamente nei tag.

Ciao.

Thank you for spotting that. Yes, it was certainly a typo. I have changed it to private only, since it looks like parking for the school.

Apologies, I meant that taxis are allowed during the day, not at night. The logic for the values is the same though.

Hi.
Last time I checked, taxis could use Speedwell/Norfolk Street only at night (hence the taxi:conditional value). Therefore, it's either psv=yes + taxi=no, or psv=no + bus=yes/designated.

No signs, I think.

Pedestrians are everywhere. Buses drive slowly and wait for pedestrians to move away. As far as I understand, pedestrians have precedence, legally given by the signage of the pedestrian area.
De facto, I think it behaves as a living street: different surface from the regular roads, no pavement-road distinctions, all users (pedestrians and buses) share the space with common sense. Living streets, however, seem to imply a legal designation of "home zone" and related blue signage.
A designated road for pedestrian should not be anything else, in my opinion. I strongly feel this should not be a regular road.

As for the last bit at Carfax, you are right. The signage starts at the very beginning, so there is no space for the taxis in Queen St itself (except when they are allowed at night of course, when mostly they wait there, but I don't think there is an official bay). I will check the connecting segment named Carfax, which they can use for turning during the day.

The previous state of the relation was:

name=Folly Bridge Bus Gate
source=https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/residents/roads-and-transport/parking/parking-and-bus-gate-fines/bus-lanes-and-bus-gates
type=restriction
restriction=only_left_turn
except=psv;bicycle

The "except" key is documented on the wiki as the way to do what you are pointing at. "psv" includes buses. Was it not working?

Hello Mike. Apologies, can you explain what you did here? Did you just remove the turn restrictions of the bus gate (which still exists as far as I am aware), or are they mapped in another way?

Thanks, Andrew. So, do you think they should remain on the map? It can be a slippery slope, if every office within a larger institution is mapped separately.

BUNET, I suppose, is a consortium of those 5 colleges (acronym of their initials), who probably share IT resources and staff.
office=it might be an appropriate descriptor, but they seem too private for me, and part a larger entity more than their own IT company.
At the moment, besides the overall college institution being mapped, we have libraries and chapels, which are mostly private but might be open to visitors in some cases, and they occupy very distinctive buildings. All other private amenities (college bars, dining facilities) and internal offices are not mapped as such.

If jhdore mapped these for a reason, we can hear it, otherwise I would agree with reverting.

Hi.

Is it actually necessary to map these? They seem to me quite internal to the organigram of the institutions, and we don't map various other college offices (academic, bursaries, development, etc.), which are of little interest to general users.

Moreover, they certainly are not "bars" (even if drinking were to happen in them!).

The street signs mark Queen St as a designated pedestrian area, the pavement is levelled and people certainly use it as a pedestrian street. (Compared, for example, to George St, which has traffic restrictions but certainly feels more like a normal road).
Wouldn't highway=pedestrian be a better descriptor? All access tags are correct anyway.

Hi. May I ask what were you trying to achieve?

Is the creation of a new amenity=bus_station for this collection of bus stops necessary? Does it actually function as a station/prominent terminus?
Before, that tag was used only for the Gloucester Green station with inter-city coaches.
I am open to hear an argument, but I am not convinced at the moment. The geometry also looks arbitrary.

P.S. This changeset moved a few nodes by mistake breaking the platform 3 and track line elements. They are fixed now.

Mapping what is actually on the ground, over what is defined legally on paper, is a founding principle of OSM, and it applies to roads too. The wiki page for UK roads is helpful guidance, but every case should be always judged individually.
If this is the only exception, it might mean that that's what is is, or that other roads might also need to be reviewed, or that the legal classification is out-of-date. Alone, it cannot mandate how it should be tagged.

In Oxford, for users, this does not look and does not behave like a primary road, in my opinion.
Legal classification and national consistency are not powerful enough arguments to change it.
The only argument I can see for highway=primary is that it is actually a primary road for bus routes. That's true (although not applicable to most users).

Anyway, the note asks to start a discussion on talk:GB before changing it. I assume that some discussion happened there some time ago, to reach a consensus decision on this.
If you would like to review, it is probably best to move the discussion there, compared to this changeset where only we are notified. (If you do, please let us know.)

Thanks. All the best!

Hi both,

The wiki for key:highway specifies:
> Note that highway=* distinguishes roads by function and importance rather by their physical characteristic and legal classification. Usually these things are highly correlated, but OSM is not obligated to copy official road classifications.

And key:highway=primary:
> Use highway=primary to tag a major highway linking large towns
> Primary highways are usually open to all motorised trafic

This section of road is not a primary link on the ground, it is not signed as such and cannot be used as such by traffic. The current state of the map is before my time, but I think it is accurate.
The legal classification is irrelevant. In my opinion, mapping Oxford St Aldate's and High Street as primaries would make a worse map for users.