Hi Ceirios, Thank you for reaching out.

There was a traffic_calming=yes tag on the footway at 51.678367, -4.1577965, and since traffic calming features should be present on the roads instead, I transferred the tag to the highway section where the crossing was located.

I’m assuming that the contributor considered the crossing as a calming feature, but I don’t have enough resources to confirm the specific type. If you’re from the area and have already surveyed the area, your local knowledge would be invaluable.

Please let me know of your opinion on this situation. I’ll be happy to take your feedback into consideration and re-assess the use of the tag here.

Hi, Ceirios.
Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and get back to you.”

Hi lakedistrict,
Thank you for sharing your observations and recent Mapillary imagery. I see that I misinterpreted the zig-zag markings as a traffic calming measure. Your message and the clarification is much appreciated. I see that the traffic_calming=* tag is not there anymore, so thank you for making the corrections.

Hi silversurfer83,
Thank you for your feedback and for raising the question. There was a traffic_calming=yes tag on the footway instead of the highway segment. I understand that you would like me provide a specific calming feature instead of the generic traffic_calming value.
Based on the available imagery, it is possible to specify the calming feature as an island.
Please let me know of your opinion on this matter. I'll take your feedback into consideration and review the appropriate tagging for this scenario before making any further changes.

Hi silversurfer83,
Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and get back to you.”

Hi trigpoint

Thank you for reverting the changeset and meanwhile sharing your feedback with me as well.

My interpretation of the geometry was otherwise. I appreciate your explanation regarding the stop line arrangement and your view that the location should remain mapped as a staggered junction.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. It’s well noted and I will refer to this information during my future edits in the region.

Hi lostmike,

Thank you for reviewing the changeset and for sharing your feedback.

My intention was to improve the representation of the junction based on my interpretation of the road geometry. I appreciate your observation regarding the introduced kinks and understand your concern about the resulting geometries. Well noted.

I'll review the area again, taking your feedback into consideration, and discuss the interpretation further before making any additional changes.

Thank you for taking the time to share your observations and for helping improve OpenStreetMap.

Hi IknowJoseph,
thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations. I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective.

In this case, after reviewing the area once more, I would agree with you that I shouldn’t have merged the junctions. Moreover, I think the said roads should be realigned with respect to their centerlines, resulting in the junctions being further apart from each other.

Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.

Hi IknowJoseph,
thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations. I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective.

In this case, after reviewing the area once more, I would agree with you that I shouldn’t have merged the junctions. Furthermore, would you agree that Burley road shouldn’t change orientation while connecting with the Prince Regent Lane and remain a straight line?

Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.

Hi IknowJoseph,
thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations. I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective.

Upon reviewing the area once more, I still think it would be correct to merge the two junctions into a single one. Looking at the centerline of Forest Road, and where the extensions of William Street and Chewton Close connect to it, modeling a single junction probably would be OK.

Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.

Hi IknowJoseph,
thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations. I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective. Upon reviewing the area once more, specifically the alignment of the lane markings and painted islands across each other, I still think it would be correct to merge the two junctions into a single one. Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.

Hi flex16,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I removed the covered tag as it was not generally used along with man_made=bridge, and thought it was redundant. Upon further inspection I realized that the use of this tag is adopted by some users and there has been discussions around it: osm.wiki/Talk:Key:covered#Discourage_%22covered%22_for_linear_roads_under_bridges

I’ve restored the tag since the removal was not exactly an improvement and I’ll be more aware with such tagging discussions. Thank you for reaching out.

Reverted in changeset id: 180302627

Partially Revert of 180141261

Reverted in changeset ID: 180389851

Reverted in changeset ID: 180142505

Revert of 180096560

Partially reverted in changeset id: 180334594

Reverted in changeset id:180297803

Reverted in changeset id:180288643