I've noticed you've split a few buildings up that, as far as I can tell, aren't separate buildings. A building having multiple addresses is pretty common, especially in urban environments.

Wouldn't adding the tag to an address node or building:part be more appropriate? Thanks

Hi JackW25, thanks for the contributions in Telford!
Just a friendly FYI that when there is no physical separation its good practice to use the lane and turn:lane tags instead of mapping lanes as separate ways. I've updated these junctions to show this - you can read more about this here turn=*

Cheers

hi, I think the tag you were looking for is highway=corridor instead of highway=footway - I have made this change

Cheers

Hello, thanks for adding more details to this area!

Just a friendly note that we shouldn't use name tags to describe features that don't have names. I've removed some of the name="Tunnel" tags for the underpasses on the cart paths. See here for more examples:
name=*#When_not_to_use

Thanks :)

I agree they can over complicate things. I'll keep this in mind in the future.

Thanks for the nudge and doing the work!

Hi, do you have a source for the field names used here? A few of them don't seem to line up with the modern land parcels so I'm not sure how valid they are. Thanks

Hi, a fair question.

The details for Woodlands Outdoor Education Centre were duplicated on both the main building and the surrounding area. I removed the details from the building to keep to the "One feature, one OSM element" rule.

I can see you've re-added the address with the names for the individual buildings, which is a nice addition.

way/606025138
way/1129397943
osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thanks

Hello, the penny toll for pedestrians isn't gated so this change isn't a good fit. It's a box with a coin slot on the top. It's there mostly due to the bylaw and not policed.

I'm open to suggestions to other tags as I can see that toll_booth isn't a perfect fit

I've created a relation to try and group them. relation/20775577/
I think some work could be done to tidy this up and make it clearer where a feature belongs to more than one protected area e.g. Bulls Cross.

never mind, just found this :) https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shrewsbury-high-school-gdst_girlsschool-shrewsbury-shropshire-activity-7196925751252656128-ALGG/

Hi, thanks for your edit. Has the High School taken on the old Severnside greens?

hi there, thanks for trying to tidy up the paths around Machynlleth!

I've merged the way here as its duplicated with the track which has the relevant PRoW tags on it already. way/1468995135

In general OSM tries to map what is on the ground so its preferable if a PRoW deviates a bit from the official designated line set by the council or maps. If it deviates a lot then this can be reflected in the tags.

Another thing to note is that just because something is designated as a public footpath it doesn't necessarily mean that cycling or equestrian is not allowed, its up to whoever owns the land. Natural Resources Wales often permit cycle tracks etc in their woods.

Cheers

Thanks for the replies!

On reflection its mainly the addition of the postfixes that are giving me "this dataset should not be the name tag" vibes, especially with the "Pole Transformers" everywhere.

Looking at the "Open Infrastructure Map" project I'm getting the sense this is a case of mapping for render.

I appreciate could do with wider discussion so I'll hold fire changing the names already mapped.

Another thing I've noticed is that "Substation" or "Transformer" is prepended to most (all?) of the the nodes you've added - is this from the NG data source?

I have verified that some substations don't have this as part of their name
e.g. node/9974532958 is labelled as "Shelton Flds." [Sic] Adding "Substation" here would be descriptive and redundant thanks to the tags.

Sorry to be a bore, to be clear I generally think this information is useful, I'm just a bit cautious about imported datasets.

I had a look at a couple of pole transformers on my walk today and couldn't see anything visible on the grey box apart from a ref on the pole.

From the wiki:
"Do not use name=* if:
The feature is unnamed in the real world"

If its hit and miss perhaps "ref_name" would be more appropriate for the pole transformers?

Hi, could you please explain why?

My understanding is that these are descriptions given by National Grid and rarely (if ever) used in the real world. official_name gives this context.

Just to hopefully clear up a couple of things:

Motor vehicle access is implied "no" on footpaths (it should actually highlight this in the iD editor!). It is still good practice to be explicit, especially for pavements in the UK so this work isn't wasted.

To decide access routing software should look at the "access" tag then the individual foot/bicycle/motor tags.
---
I've removed the access=no tag on a couple of ways that aren't pavements as could still legally be accessible to cyclists. e.g. way/943374864

I've also updated the tags to use the more standard highway=footpath ones.

PS great work mapping the pavements btw!

Thanks, my bad.

Hi, thanks for the additions.

I'm removing the separate cycle way as cycle lanes part of the main highway are tagged using the "cycleway=lane" tags which already exist. highway=cycleway is typically used just segregated cycle paths.

Hi again, hope you had a good solstice.

I appreciate this was a while ago but do you have a source for the tag "ref=SW (2)" used for the Shropshire Way?
This change set appears to be the source of it.