Thank you for your prompt response! I understand your point regarding my example; in that case though, the crossing=* tag was maintained, with only the value changed from crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=uncontrolled. My main concern was that the crossing=* tags had been completely removed. As noted in the wiki, crossing=* is required if crossing:markings=* is used (crossing:markings=*#:~:text=Requires,crossing%3D*).

If I interpret your comment correctly though, it seems we are aligned on the precedent for using crossing=*. In that case, would you agree that we can consider adding crossing=* to those nodes and ways where it has been removed?

Best regards,
Dylan

Hi marc_marc,

Hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about some removal of the crossing=* tag on features like way/859824958. Based on the wiki (crossing=*), the use of crossing=* appears to have been correct on these features. Could you help me understand the reason for their removal?

Thanks and happy mapping,
VLD282/Dylan

Hello rskedgell, thank you for bringing these to our attention. While reviewing this changeset, we noticed that separate sidewalks were added along residential roads which, to our understanding, is not preferable to the London mapping community. I’ve gone through to try and adjust these edits to align with these practices, thanks again for pointing these out.

And I see what you mean regarding kerb tagging, thanks for the suggestion! As far as the project link goes, we do include #'s for the ones our changeset is focused on in the comment, but heres a link too that will show the project instructions! https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/59040.

Hi TheBestIdea,

I noticed you had put oneway tags on some footways, like this one here (way/1211343426), and I was a little unsure what they were meant to represent. Is this section of sidewalk oneway for all pedestrians or just cyclists? It looks like you meant it just for cyclists but I wanted to reach out to make sure! If that’s correct, I was thinking a tag like one listed here (oneway:bicycle=*) might be helpful to remove the ambiguity.

Thanks and happy mapping,
Dylan/VLD282

Accidentally submitted with wrong changset comment. Should be 'Updated mismatched crossing tags'.
-VLD282/Dylan

Hi StC,

My apologies! Thanks for making that fix, I’ll be sure to pay closer attention in the future.

Regards, VLD282/Dylan

Hi @rskedgell,

My apologies! Our standard practice is to avoid adding separate sidewalks when a tag is already present on the parent highway (sidewalk=both), I must have overlooked that when working in this area. That proposed edit sounds reasonable and I’ll pay closer attention in the future. Thank you and @Derek Rethans for bringing this to my attention.

Hey cubbe8,

Thanks for the feedback and letting me know that the imagery I was using is no longer valid. I will make sure to take that into consideration in my future edits around this area.
Thanks,

Hi OSM Community,

I’m currently looking at relation relation/7781347 in JOSM and it pops up with an “unclosed multipolygon” error that I was going to resolve but wanted to reach out about it first. The issue comes from a segment of way way/544521555 that is dividing the multipolygon, preventing it from closing. My idea is to separate that segment from the way so that it can be removed from the relation and closed. The way that would need to be edited has a “note” tag on it which heavily implies this way has been worked on thoroughly by a local mapper. Do you have any suggestions on the best approach for this?

Thanks,

Links
relation/7781347: relation/7781347#map=14/55.98551/92.81085
way/544521555: way/544521555#map=17/55.993342/92.806906