Why did you feel it was necessary to redundantly and incorrectly add access=no here when it was already tagged with motor_vehicle=no and other access tags?

Adding access=permit here would imply that all transport modes, including pedestrians need a permit, routinely granted to everyone requesting it.

It's both a very car-centric way of tagging a modal filter and very unlikely to be correct.

As you haven't had the courtesy to reply and I am reasonably sure that access=no on way/1462752506 (implying a pedestrian prohibition) was incorrect, I've reverted this in changeset/176883372

There's at least one more of your changesets which requires a response.

Unfortunately your edit deleted part of the B3013 Minley Road. As this would break routing, I have reverted it in changeset/176874463

What were you trying to fix?

Set as access=private and name removed. It's included in OS Open Roads as an unnamed "Restricted Local Access Road".

changeset/176796774

Many thanks @woodpeck

Please read osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Please read osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Reverted in changeset/176743722 due to incompatible source licence.

Unfortunately, you can't do that. If you read Royal Mail's T&Cs at https://www.royalmail.com/postcode-finder-term-conditions-en you'll see the following:

"You must not at any time copy, reproduce, publish, sell, let, lend, extract, reutilise or otherwise part with possession or control of or relay or disseminate any part of this information or use it for any purpose other than your own internal use."

Reverted by changeset/176743472

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

An electoral boundary should be tagged as boundary=political + political_division=ward rather than as landuse=* (different landuse in this area is already mapped in greater detail). You could also add wikidata=Q17007112 to link back to Wikidata/Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia map may not have an OSM-compatible licence (NB I'm not certain of this), but there are two sources of ward boundaries released under the (usually) compatible Open Government Licence:

ONS WD25 Ward Boundaries (May 2025)
https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/ons::wards-may-2025-boundaries-uk-bfe-v2-2/explore

Ordnance Survey Boundary-Line™
https://osdatahub.os.uk/data/downloads/open/BoundaryLine

If High Street is a highway maintainable at public expense, then access=permissive seems unlikely, as a revocable permission for all transport modes could only exist on an unadopted (privately owned road). It's also redundant where you've also got motor_vehicle=delivery (also not sure why you've changed this from motor_vehicle=destination added by a mapper who's actually been there, and which would include delivery).

The net effect of this on access permissions is that a carriage has permissive access to be driven down Uxbridge High Street. I really, really, doubt that the traffic orders or signage convey any such thing.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The international format UK phone numbers which are used in OSM lose the '0' trunk prefix - see phone=* for more details.

I've changed it back to
phone=+44 20 7625 1027
in changeset/176644645

You're entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't present it to a new mapper as if it were in any way the established consensus in the UK.

It's used in order to disambiguate a sidewalk/pavement/footway from a footway which isn't a sidewalk? It's useful information for routers or renderers. We're stuck with the Americanism of footway=sidewalk because the correct legal term for this part of a highway, per s. 329(1) Highways Act 1980 is "footway" (a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only). In everyday speech it's called a "pavement", but that would be confusing to the majority of US and Canadian mappers.

It's distinct from a footpath, also mapped as highway=footway (a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway).

It's also been used over 180k times, particularly in the last 5 years, so it's a bit late to attempt a unilateral deprecation of established and valid tagging.
https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:united-kingdom/tags/footway=sidewalk

Perhaps we should take this to https://community.openstreetmap.org/ in order to see if your view has any support amongst other UK mappers?

There is an est_height=* tag which you could use, although the documentation suggests that you could add source:height=estimate to your current tagging.

Where you're using building:levels=* this should actually be an integer representing how many levels the building has. There's level:ref=* for documenting how floors are designated. For example, L Block could be tagged with:
building:levels=2 + level:ref=G;1

@BCNorwich sorry, I strongly disagree with that assertion. Could you point me to where this was discussed or documented?

These separate sidewalks probably shouldn't have been mapped at all, but that's a different matter and not relevant to this changeset.

Are you sure that access=no (no access by *any* transport mode, including pedestrians) is correct here? What area the actual restrictions here?

(Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Access tags like foot=no in OSM are intended to reflect the legal position. In the UK, pedestrians use highways by absolute right, unless there is a traffic order and sign (TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited"). It's not very common, although you can see it at the entrances to the nearby Upper Thames Street Tunnel. It isn't the case on White Lion Hill, even on the short section without a pavement between the steps down to Paul's Walk and Blackfriars Underpass.

It's understandable that you might want to discourage pedestrian routing on the carriageway, but however unsafe and impractical it might seem to you, it's still legal. If pedestrian routing software has tried to suggest it as a route, I'd be a little dubious about any other routes it might produce.

This is quite a common misunderstanding and, as it's been reverted, no harm has been done. Happy mapping (and Happy Christmas)!

* no *right* turn in #3 above

Hi, as you didn't respond to my question, I took a little look at the signed restrictions around the junction of Terminus Place and Buckingham Palace Road. I've also submitted images to Mapillary.

1) From Buckingham Palace Road southbound, there is a signed "no left turn, except buses" restriction. Taxis are not allowed.

2) There is no sign prohibiting vehicles other than buses and taxis on the section of Terminus Place, therefore the restriction you added was fictitious.

3) From Buckingham Palace Road northbound (a physically separated carriageway with a "no entry except buses" sign) and a signed "no left turn, except buses" restriction. Taxis are not allowed in either case.

Fiction reverted in changeset/176319074