Several of these paths are tagged as PROWs. What was the reason for adding access=private? Any new signage or obstruction?

Thanks, good suggestion. I wasn't aware of parking=street_side (car parks are not my main area of interest).

There is no consensus on that and many (myself included) prefer mapping the pavements explicitly.

Thanks for bringing this discussion to my attention. I will reply there.

I would say this is a router issue. I am not even sure if it uses sidewalk= tags at all, it seems to fallback to any roads that don't explicitly ban pedestrians. At the same time it indeed over-prioritises footways.

The solution is to keep mapping and keep improving routers. Not to dumb down data to mask router deficiencies. Fixes to the routers may happen overnight, map data - not so much.

The main advantage of Google is algorithms they use for merging disjoint pieces of information (maps, search, timetables etc), not the quality of their map data. And yes, we could learn from them.

Milhouse,

My issue with this discussion is calling such changes "incorrect" or "bad mapping" when objectively they are not. I do not see why amalash would need to acknowledge that. Incomplete data are a norm - just look at this map, there are partially mapped fences or individual trees - someone found them useful or simply had fun mapping them.

I don't have an opinion on the sidewalk= tag but having data duplicated at at different levels of detail should be fine, maybe even useful.

BTW, I see at least one reason _not_ to use sidewalk= tags (but I would never discourage them!). When the pavement is discontinuous it chops the road way into multiple segments. This can become unwieldy when combined with other similar tags (speed limits, surface, lane count, dropped kerbs, bus lines).

Cebderby, I understand your point but it is still _your_ preference and opinion. Others will disagree, as it is common in all discussions about the level of detail. Please refrain from accusing others of bad mapping only because you disagree with their choices.

Hi Steven,

While I understand your concern about maintainability or excessive details, adding pavements (as well as any other details) is perfectly fine. Mappers may have different ideas on what details are important. There's also no requirement for edits to be complete or even correct, as long as errors are not added intentionally.

Hopefully fixed in changeset/158716146. I'll wait for imagery to catch up before any further changes in this area.

I'd like to fix my error, or at least find the place, so I don't repeat it. From your activity in the area I guess is it is about the Manningtree Park development, possibly the entrance to it (the junction with Long Road) but I am not sure if that is what you meant. Reverting the whole Manningtree Park produces 13 conflicts, so it is still a bit too broad.

Hi, apologies my mistake.

I will try to revert the changeset if I can (it is quite large and a bit old by now). Can you point me to the affected junction? It may be easier to do a partial revert.

I couldn't find any deletions in the area. However, it is surprisingly difficult to analyse OSM history, especially when searching for deleted objects, so my search is not conclusive.

It is quite likely buildings simply haven't been created yet. That wouldn't be out of ordinary. Towns that are fully mapped usually have active contributors living nearby.

I'll check it more closely later when I get back to my computer but I don't see any deleted ways/buildings in the change log. Do you know what buildings have disappeared? Perhaps remember one?

In hindsight, leaving construction areas for too long may be obtrusive to new residents who may want an up to date and readable map. I will try shrinking them sooner.

I don't remember this particular case. I normally leave construction areas until the whole site has been completed (mainly to avoid tagging multiple fragments of unfinished sites) but there's no rule to that. Feel free to update it as you like.

Hi IpswichEdits, first of all, apologies, I did not realise it was your preferred mapping style. I blindly assumed these landuses were mapped long time ago. I should have researched the local area more before jumping in. If you prefer the previous convention I am happy to revert my changes.

Regarding alignment - I used OSMUK Cadastral Parcels, which as I understand are supposed to produce a definitive alignment. This indeed resulted in an offset between new landuse boundaries and buildings. As the amount of changes was quite large I opted for the "correct" alignment. If you are OK with this style of landuses, please let me know if you want me to align buildings to cadastral parcels or align landuses to buildings. I did notice the existing data were mapped very precisely indeed, albeit at a different offset.

Regarding conventions - I prefer mapping landuses away from the roads, as tends to match the actual use better (although legal status sometimes differs) and allows more freedom in allocating different landuses types to different plots of land, without all the complexity of multi-polygons etc. In my opinion having landuses connect to roads can be also more difficult to maintain (both roads and landuses accumulate a lot more points than they really need). Also, this is purely philosophical and debatable, I prefer to keep 1D and 2D objects as separate data classes that don't mix.

This is not to convince you this is the right method of mapping landuses (it has its own limitations too), just explain my logic. Having others enjoy mapping is far more important, so if you would like me to revert or clean up my changes in any specific way just let me know.

Hi,

Thank you for your contribution. I think "test zone" was uploaded by mistake, could you please remove it.

Deleted non-existent road in #141679432

Hi eteb3,

I have merged an existing, now deleted PoI (node/6415868887) into a building, deleting the history along the way (sorry). The PoI was added in a changeset changeset/69371177 and I can see you have already commented on it.

I agree with you this is most likely an error. At very least I would have removed the amenity=place_of_worship tag.

Hi DaveF,

In this and similar changesets I have copied an existing landuse=residential way with a place=* tag
way/58821399
into a standalone place=* way (mostly to avoid accidental removal of data).

I do not know where it originates from but since it was bundled with landuse=residential it is unlikely it was based on official data.