"#RidePendle" removed from bridleways in changeset/116347862 and116348143. Others were removed during mapping, these were from an overpass search.

Hi, the tag designation=bridleway is not documented. If this is a public bridleway (as in a public right of way) then the correct tag is designation=public_bridleway. However, the local authority's PRoW data shows this to be a public footpath, not bridleway, as was originally tagged. I wonder what your source is for the edit? Simply once being a bridleway doesn't mean that it is any longer. I suggest reverting back to designation=public_footpath, as this is the official designation, unless any on-the-ground evidence (e.g. public bridleway signs) suggest otherwise.

Hi, it looks like you've added "access=no" to the canal towpath. The path is a public footpath, so was this an error? Or is the path closed for some reason and, if so, do you know when it is due to re-open? Thanks.

Incorrect description. Correct description: Add details to Swinden Water reservoirs and add Swinden Water stream route.

Re-opened cycle path (and removed construction area) in changeset/103649905

Source: local knowledge and https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/news/2021/apr/resurfaced-millennium-path-reopens-as-part-of-the-12-2m-caton-road-lancaster-flood-risk-management-scheme

Due to the unlikely nature of these mapped areas, and with no response, I've removed the military training areas in: changeset/103485759

Is this motorcycle training area really a military training area? It seems highly unlikely to me.

Hi all, just to note the edits in this changeset weren't (at least fully) reverted/deleted. Since this was issue was first commented on nearly 2 years ago, I am have removed this "trial route" as part of my public rights of way edits in changeset/101923385

Hi, what is way/533372695? (way/533372695) After your edit, it is just shown as a line with no tags. Should it be deleted?

Restored (in correct location) in changeset/96069831

Hi, I've just checked what happened (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=87755135) and it shows the position of the church was clearly incorrect based on aerial imagery. But deleting it was an error - it should have been edited/moved to its correct location. I'll add it back, in its correct location, and post here with the changeset link. Apologies.

I know, I was justifying why I mapped the PROW in the first place.
"Could you comment here on what you propose to change before you do so? Or start a discussion on talk-gb." I find this somewhat ironic... but I'm not suggesting changing it.

Hi, I hadn't seen this discussion - feel free to drop me a message about any changes I make (so at least I'm notified). The route is a public right of way and deserves mapping. The decision for designated access tags for individual transport modes was based on: osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging - as gurglypipe mentions designated is a legal definition and which applies to cyclists, regardless of physical accessibility.

I note that the user performed a similar action in changeset/66138395
The boundary of HMS Sultan was (accidentally?) edited resulting in it no longer being mapped. I have subsequently fixed it in changeset/89521872

I have fixed this issue (remapped the military land use) in changeset/89521872

Hi,

It looks like your edits broke the military land use boundary of HMS Sultan. As far as I am aware, HMS Sultan is still a military base (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/bases-and-stations/training-establishments/hms-sultan) and should be tagged as such. Please fix this.

Hi, thanks. These public rights of way were imported through the County Council's open access data. If the route isn't passible any more you can report the fault: https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/

I agree that Rockall should not be an island. Perhaps islet is better suited than rock however: place=islet

Indeed Rockall's wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall) describes it as such.

It is - fixed in changeset/84477957

Thanks!

Thanks.