There is a feature on the aerial, but I may have mistaken a ditch for a wall. If you have more up to date survey data then please do make the change.

If you have more up to date survey data then please do make the change.

Apologies for any trouble caused. As I remember, this geometry seemed (seems?) to present as an otherwise untagged way - can you help inform my future editing by advising why you used this approach, rather than tagging features with their identity? A wiki reference might be good if there is anything relevant. Thankyou.

Mea culpa - now made change. Normally do use abandoned - not sure where this came from. Thankyou.

Yes, I use wireframe at times. Issue is that plotting route needs both the old OS map (to confirm that the wrong possible feature on the aerial / from survey visit is not being followed in complex areas) and an indication of where modern development has encroached and erased evidence of the route. In areas such as you have commented upon, the OSM features ae often ore up to date than either aerial or openOS. So lots of toggling of layers ensues - and switching multiple layers on and off via tick boxes would be much slower. In practice, I try to avoid existing features and manually disconnect if they do connect. But evidently not always successfully. Do you know if there is an easy way to disable / adjust the 'snap' function - that would help if I could.

OK - thankyou - I can see how to turn off features. But I had thought you were suggesting a way to turn off the possibility of connection. Is this not possible? If I simply turn off the features, then it would seem more difficult to see where I should be plotting and where I should not be plotting the route. I'll have a think about an appropriate strategy.

Appreciating that plotting old railways is not without controversy, I have tried (mostly) to gap them where there is current development, but avoiding connection does seem a good idea. But you'll need to tell me more - I'm not clear what you mean by 'option in iD'.

Taken in the spirit intended. Not the first time this has caught me out when using a specific title when I normally use a generic - will try to remember to check for at least the immediate future - though I'm sure I'll slip up again at some point.

Ooops - one of those change set titles which gets copied from one set of updates to quite another - mea culpa for not checking. Any ideas on how to change a change set title? On the other hand, with a £1.3B budget, the A14 really ought to reach the border ...

Thankyou for feedback. Have removed farmyard and added three separate buildings instead. If you know what the use is from your visit, then by all means edit further, of course. It took a while to identify the feature in question - it helps to give a clue!

Thankyou - found it now - and I do now remember mapping hanging on me at this point. I have now deleted area and replaced it with a new wood shape. Thankyou for picking this up.

Not sure which feature you mean - perhaps you could identify it more exactly so I can have another look?

Thankyou for feedback. I will hold my hand up to simplifying farmyards, but I'm puzzled by your example - if I've got the right link then this farmyard looks pretty rectangular to me. I see that you live in Shropshire, whereas I visit, but if you've looked at my changesets you'll see that I concentrate on open country. I entirely agree when it comes to large towns such as Shrewsbury, but much of rural UK has little or no of the farmyard / woodland / track information which I find useful when walking / running / biking. The balance between broader brush and fine detail is always hard to get right at different stages in map evolution - I'd be pleased to be referred to guidance or discuss further - please do message me. In the meantime, I'll try to add more points in future, though I'm currently mousing left handed due to RSI in the right which can sometimes limit my accuracy.

Agree - had not appreciated that this was a relation. My edit (tagged on to other work as changeset reflects) simply reflects local news that the runways had finally closed as an operational airfield, with the military presence retreating to the old technical area. I have no issue with this being tidied up.