I'd love to say "wow, that takes me back" but I don't even remember visiting there! I was a very inexperienced mapper back then... I think I most likely intended to map "pub with a beer garden". Please feel free to update it to match that, or just remove the tourism=picnic_site. Cheers

Done, cheers!

This one here: way/653988794

Hi, when I've walked this footpath it definitely goes on the south side of that shed building, there's a narrow path with gates at either side.

I agree that the routers are do not all handle areas the same, but I don't think justifies creating extra ways that don't exist on the ground (and it certainly looks better with them removed). However, I don't feel so strongly about it so if you wish, I will revert the change.

I can't guarantee all, but some routers work with pedestrian areas! The ways I deleted don't actually exist on the ground, and it's not recommended to map purely for the renderer/router.

Fair enough! Have redone the tagging with the more explicit motor_vehicle=no and added the bollards.

I considered doing it like that but didn't go with that approach because they are not actually under construction, because it might discourage routers from using those routes for pedestrian/cycle routing when this is actually possible, and because it will be very easy to put right once the construction is complete.

I had another look this morning; the one ways have not been explicitly suspended but lodge street is closed halfway up and trenchard street (east end) is 'road closed, access only'

Good point - will go and have another look to check

I've now sorted this out (changeset/67143336) by getting rid of the fake oneway section and tagging the no entry as a restriction relation.

This edit extended further than I expected (was using the street complete app). I'll have another look at it tomorrow.

Fair enough, although only short sections are actually guided. It's certainly not a highway=residential anyway!

The highway=construction between the M5 junction and highwood lane looks odd, was this intended?