please be careful when adding new footpaths not to lose connectivity of existing footpaths to streets

The tag `area = yes` should not have been removed from Place Masséna (8597240)

please be careful to use valid tags when editing maps. I removed some invalid 'road' tags you used. I suggest reading the beginners guide to get familiar: osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide

you seem to have one change in Indonesia and another in France, both in the same changeset – please try to separate those in the future :)

Apologies, I didn't study the whole changeset, I strictly meant the footpath/pavement additions which are part of the changeset.

Adding effectively random pavements, such as can now be seen everywhere along the Capital Ring relation (relation/6118565) looks far uglier and misleading - e.g. is there a pavement on only one side of all these roads: Elmfield Road, Cloudesdale Road, Ritherdon, Fontenoy, etc...?

Therefore I repeat my previous ask that you only add footpaths where there is no adjacent road, otherwise use the `sidewalk` tags, which is a lot cleaner. How does that sound?

Hi Ram, the Sidewalks documentation which Harvey linked explains that there are two approaches to adding pavement information. The OSM convention is to only add pavements where they diverge from the nearby streets (such as this footpath: way/24299673), otherwise it's much simpler to add relevant `sidewalk=both|left|right` tags, as appropriate, without drawing extra lines (ways) which are overwhelming on OSM.

As you mention specifically wanting to improve the detail for cycle routes, you can see that Riggindale Road and Conyer's Road are already part of Quietway C5 (relation/11132532), the pavements themselves aren't used for cycling anywhere in the area. For cycling, it's more valuable to add accurate detail such as the junction of C5 at Mitcham Lane with the one-way entry exemption for cycles.

As pointed out by Harvey, the pavements are not properly connected therefore please add relevant 'unmarked crossing' connections at all junctions, such as way/911221202 otherwise please revert your changeset. Thanks both for contributing to the OSM community :)

Hi @PaulaMartin, I notice that you've added a lot of standalone nodes representing speed humps, however these should be made part of the relevant ways, rather than as separate nodes. I see this is a massive import, so can someone from the community suggest how best to do this?