Nice. The overall work in Rye and a few nearby towns to fix the misalignment is going to be a huge job, but I applaud any move in that direction!

For context: this was added in July 2013 in changeset/17034685 without any source given at the time, but @Gregory Williams is still an active contributor to the map.

Thanks Jon. I think this still leaves us with a problem for permissible information with which to make a change in terms of intellectual property - something I've myself been corrected on in the past with respect to council planning docs.

I don't know enough here to advise, so you might need to take to the forums. There's a broad FAQ answer that's relevant, though: osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data?

Apologies for the multiple comments. OS OpenMap Local, which should be accurate and up-to-date, has this branch as the B2090. I can also see that local authorities do refer to this branch as the B2090 in notices about roadworks. We can't use the latter as an information source, but I think it casts enough doubt that I'm going to revert this change until we have a convincing permissible source of information.

Quick note: the street signs on Bing Streetside (which is permissible) at both ends of Park Lane do indeed indicate that it's also part of the B2089 as you've suggested.

Hey - I'm not sure these are permissible sources for information? Especially the Ordnance Survey MasterMap. Please consult osm.wiki/Copyright_information_for_UK_mappers

I also note that this seems to have missed way/1085057069 (where Park Lane joins the A21) and way/98371276 (where it joins the B2089 westward).

Understood, but it does exist on the ground, has recently been used even if there's no permitted right of way as evidenced by Strava Heat Maps, and the tagging (with rskedgell's correction) does indicate that public use is not permitted. The tags right now recognise its existence, occasional usage, and the fact that it's private. Good routing applications will no longer send people along it.

There's a good page on the pros and cons here: osm.wiki/Illegal_paths

Thanks for catching this, should have double-checked it when making my changes earlier.

Hello - I've slightly tweaked this in changeset/176006316 as it's clear from Strava Heatmaps that it does get some foot use, and the way is visible on Bing, Esri, and Mapbox satellite imagery (ground truth).

I've left it as access=no since it's not a PRoW and there's no evidence of permissive access, but I've changed informal to yes based on the evidence of usage. This last change might be a bit dubious now that it has highway=track rather than highway=footway?

Hi Nathan, this is a late comment, but wanted to give some quick feedback - as I understand it, access=private is intended for places "not to be used by the public". In this change there are a bunch of paths and tracks that are explicitly and legally permissible to walkers, including parts of the 1066 Country Walk, so routing is dependent on whether the routing algorithm prioritises access= or osm.wiki/Tag:foot=. I've changed some of these to motor_vehicle=private in changesets 175793390 and 175799147.

Thanks for the contribution! Please do try to upload changes for different countries seperately where possible to keep the bounding box smaller, to help reduce noise for reviewers.

Some more info here: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Just to confirm, the numbers originally added are as provided by the developer in documents (cited in the changeset(s)) where it wasn't entirely clear whether they'd translate to property numbers or not at the time I added them. If the indicated property is 7 Glenister Way, it would probably be best to remove the addr:housenumber tags for other properties on the site now, pending a survey or other permissible data being published.

Example not:name=* additions, from 13 years ago: changeset/13267861

I've noticed that signage also sometimes has the full stop after "St", which gives us three extra alt_name values right out of the gate ignoring "Saint"! Some of these roads actually had an explicit not:name=* tag for "St. Helen's Road" (for example), but with so many items changed, I've removed these for now, especially since the signage contradicts them sometimes.

I realise this change touches a lot of areas and ways - this is mainly because of the number of addresses I've adjusted to a standard form. It might possibly be best to add "Saint" to road names as an alt_name for search results, but despite varying practice by Hastings Borough Council (variable on "St"/"St." and the possessive apostrophe, but never "Saint") and the signage (typically "St."), the OS OpenData reflects the proper legal name of these roads to the best of my understanding.

FYI, this was an incorrect change. This is not a driveway. Reverted in change 172665082.

Oh, I actually thought it failed at the first hurdle re switches, but I was wrong about that, so my initial comment and change was incorrect.

I haven't gone back through the changesets, but I think some earlier tagging included public transport tags. I note that iD actually encourages the tags to be "upgraded" to include these.

I've tweaked the alignment to cadastral parcels at the eastern end, improved the way resolution, added a building, and added some extra nodes on the track.

Thanks for your corrections!

Thanks Dave, not sure I understand your request, but I had missed that UK-specific point on the wiki.

I do feel that miniature railways, which are more akin to amusement rides than public transport, probably don't serve map users well by sharing so much with actual public transport tags.

Thanks DaveF. I used the below wiki guidance to change them to halts - I'm happy with whichever, but could you help me understand why you think "station" is the better choice for these two tourist railway stops?

osm.wiki/File:Station-or-halt.svg

Thanks.

Whoops, my fault, good catch!