An inland scar is defined as exposed cliffs of limestone particularly in in many valleys in the Yorkshire Dales however coastal scars were defined in a geology paper as Limestone beds below the mean sea level, the largest pothole in the submerged area, or an isolated boulder. Hope this helps.

I have visited this site again (13-06-24) and done an update; it is definitely regarded by locals and residents as a civic amenity not a park. They sometimes refer to the grass area to the north as the park

I surveyed this area when I mapped it about 2 years ago and talked to a local who lives on Steel Street. The area I believe is best described by a tag as amenity because it is an asphalt area with a vehicle entry way controlled by bollards which can be raised/lowered under the control of Askham Parish Council (currently broken but locals do not park on this area unless authorized by the council) The asphalt area leads via a foot entry way to a grass area which used to contain children’s play apparatus but they became dangerous so were removed, and have never been replaced. The area is now just lawn mowed by the parish council. I think it is too small to be called a park. There are a number of these small amenity spaces throughout Askham.

Fixed the typo

Thanks for picking up this typo, I think it wrong that Landuse=pasture is deprecated; pasture is used primarily for grazing animals, wearas meadow is more usually for cutting/hay crop; since I am allowed I will continue to use pasture.

Thanks for your interest.

Why? Please explain why you consider this area of land `natural’. Why must heath always be tagged natural? Heath after all describes a type of vegetation; in this case with considerable amounts of Ericaceae (Heather). I consulted with a biologist and botanist from the local Wildlife trust before adding this tag. The primary tag for this area is landuse=farmland. The area is walled and fenced, and is private land. The public has no right of access to this area. Its use is controlled by the local landowner and the local farmer who rents this area from the landowner. It can be seen from the Bing aerial view that this area is similar to the adjoining heath to the NE.( Incidentaly the patterns in the heath to the NE are caused by controlled burning of the heather. The land use in this case is for the grazing of “fell” sheep and rearing of grouse for shooting. Hence the existence of shooting buts to the S. However all of this land tagged natural=heath is open access, which allows the public to walk freely over the area.
The farmland to the S of the area slowly changes to grassland, or pasture.
This area osm.org/edit?way=795506946#map=17/54.21625/-3.14442 used to be heath but about 15 years ago it was fenced, deep ploughed, treated with herbicide and planted with young trees (saplings) protected by plastic tubes. Subsquently most of the trees died but the area has been mowed to maintain it as pasture.
Similarly, this area osm.org/edit?way=795506946#map=17/54.25823/-3.13423 was about 20 years ago walled ploughed and turned from heath to pasture.
Each of the areas of farmland close to the heath / open access land called Kirkby Moor tagged as heath were carefully considered before tagging in this way to try to best describe the vegetation of the farmland.

Hi marczoutendijk, I live in Kirkby in Furness quite close to one of the areas you give as examples. I did give this tagging some thought before deciding on heath. I consulted the wiki farmland=*?uselang=en-GB which says that the farmland tag is not defined and is used to indicate the type of farmland. It is definitely not pasture; no attempt has been made to alter this land in the last 50 years, it’s vegetation is more similar to the adjoining heath but with more grass and less shrub due to the more intensive grazing of sheep. The adjoining heath (fell in the UK) is public access land wear-as the enclosed area in the example is not. The adjoining heath is also probably a type of farmland where some farmers have grazing rights for “fell sheep” I suppose it could be called grassland as an alternative but heath is a better description of the vegetation, which closely resembles many of the photo’s in the wiki description of heath. natural=heath I am open to suggestion on how this tagging could be improved to better describe the vegetation.

Hi there, thanks for pointing this out. Feel free to fix any tags you think are inappropriate. I am not aware of any unlikely tags for PROW’s and I usuallu check with the MapThePaths and the Cumbria C.C. PROW map https://cumbria.gov.uk/roads-transport/public-transport-road-safety/countryside-access/Rights_of_way/Map.asp As far as the CCW I use the out of print book “Cumbria Coastal Way” by I & K Brodie pub by Cicerone Press, although I’m aware that this doesn’t always align with PROW’s presumably these are where Cumbria C.C. negotiated permissive paths. I think its poor of Cumbria C.C. to abandon support for this long distance path which I thought superior to the Cumbria Way, especially as most of the path was on PROW’s or on or near the HWM which is also public. However I suppose its going to be replaced by the England Coast Path eventually so probably doesn’t matter in the long term.

Ah I should have put way/588485023 in the above.

Hi Is this strip of wood part of "The Rootings" wood? Oh and I've made some changes to Park Farm to include a new residential area

How does that look?

OK

Hi, it looks as though the SW part of this site has been converted into residential properties, do you want to fix it or shall I.

I feel I must fundamentally disagree with your view about a Cricket FIELD. I have checked some of the other cricket clubs in the S Cumbria area and only those you have mapped show any approximation of an oval most of the others from different mappers, map the Cricket Fields as the whole area of the field as I have done here. This is surely in line with OSM policy of only mapping what you can see on the ground! If an oval doesn't exist on the ground it shouldn't be mapped. I cant see any evidence of ovals in any of the aerial views so why do you want to map a Cricket FIELD as an oval.

Ah your quite right, however in the Bing aerial image, I cant see any oval marked on the cricket FIELD and it should be easily visible, and surely, a cricket oval is a related part of the cricket field; also since there appears to be several different `pitches' (the running area) surely the oval will move depending on which running area is chosen. (I'm not a cricketer so I wouldnt know how they cater for this), If the field is used solely for cricket then surely the current Cricket Field is the most appropriate tag with its area marked as the whole field. However if you feel strongly about this, feel free to change it to what you consider appropriate, or to add an additional approximate oval, although I don't know of any tags which describe a cricket oval, separate from a cricket field. I will attempt to get over to Lindal in the next week or two and ask some cricket club member what their preference would be!

If the field is used for anything other than cricket then recreation field would probably be better but if is sole use is cricket the cricket fiels would be appropriate. I think it needs some contact with the locals.

On further examination it appears that the area is duplicated it is also tagged as a recreation ground one of these should probably be deleted, leaving tags which best describe the area.

I agree; however its tagged as a cricket field; seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=cricket ; (The area in which the game is played, often defined by a white line). but feel free to alter the tags to better describe the area

There are some tags for marker stones marker=stone just the thing to add to the map before they get buried forever.