I wonder what is happening to this bus stop?

If it's disused then it shouldn't be part of the route relations anymore.

The data could be wrong, but bustimes still shows timetabled services for that stop: https://bustimes.org/stops/250020050

I'm finally getting round to fixing up some more bus route validation errors.

If you are removing the public_transport:stop_position from nodes, then these nodes also need to be removed from the public_transport route relations. They are often included with role:stop.

I don't necessarily agree that the stop_position nodes are unnecessary. and they are part of the PTv2 tagging schema. However I do see the point that in most cases they are next to the platform.

Version 31 now looking like the correct route again. Thanks for spotting this

Probably a bug in relatify. I'll see if I can revert the change

There are a large number of validation errors today on Edinburgh bus routes which I suspect may be due to some of your changes. For example:

{"relationID":946200,"name":"Bus 5: Hunters Tryst =\u003e The Jewel","validationErrors":["ways are incorrectly ordered - way/482837515","ways are incorrectly ordered - way/482837515","ways are incorrectly ordered - way/66111779"]}

Editing bus routes using the iD editor is generally a bad idea because it's not been programmed to understand them. I'd recommend something like josm instead.

Geofabrik OSM Inspector

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-3.27824&lat=55.94504&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes%2Cptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes

The E1 route is now failing validation due to stops appearing after the ways. Is this something you are able to fix?

Thanks for your edit. Bus route relations 2805560 and 11087987 are now failing validation with the message: ways are incorrectly ordered. Is this something you are able to fix?

Thanks for your contribution. This node previously had some bus stop tags and was part of several relations:

node/1600919895

However the tags seems to have been removed from the node. If the tags are now on a different node could you update the relations please.

Thanks for this contribution. These bus routes now contain stops which are not on the bus route:

2023/11/10 15:57:45 validating relation: relation/6152381
2023/11/10 15:57:45 stop is not on route - node/5396899822
2023/11/10 15:57:45 stop is not on route - node/5396899821
2023/11/10 15:57:45 stop is not on route - node/5396891920

2023/11/10 15:57:45 validating relation: relation/8002556
2023/11/10 15:57:45 stop is not on route - node/5399579900
2023/11/10 15:57:45 stop is not on route - node/5100278145

Thanks for your contribution. The iD editor is not a good one to use when editing public transport routes.

To be a valid PTv2 route, the stops need to be ordered in the relation the same way as along the route. It's a lot harder to do this in iD than some other editors.

I'd particularly recommend: https://relatify.monicz.dev/

I'll fix this tomorrow if it's still a problem.

Reducing the number of road splits has broken a number of the bus routes which used this junction

There's a similar structure in the stream on the way up clougha from rigg lane which is also suspiciously close to the aqueduct. so I suspect you are correct. feel free to delete the measuring station

I have no idea. Surely the aqueduct is in a concrete pipe and if that leaks they have a problem anyway. I don't see how putting the stream in a concrete channel helps that.

Looking at the photos on Wikipedia I think you are correct. The platforms don't line up in a way it would make sense to go between them like the path I mapped

sorry, I don't remember. I think I mapped out of the train window ~1 year ago. I'll check if I go through on the train again, but I've no idea when that might be

I think I see what's happened. Rather than drawing a section of footway between the two platforms, I've extended the platform instead.

Fixed in changeset/72988199

Regarding the bridge, I don't know. I didn't remove on in this changeset. From what I remember, the platform slopes down, and there is a crossing across the tracks to get to the other platform

Does the footpath from Ash Mount Road go to Charney Road? At the moment there is a small gap where the footpath isn't joined onto the road

Thanks for your contributions to the map.

I have reverted a few of the nodes modified in this changeset for the following reasons:

node/486597245 (deleted)
I have restored this node. It marks the platform position (where the passengers wait) of the bus stop. There is a relation which links the stop (position on the way where the bus stops) to the platform. I have restored membership of the relation.

node/5454175028
I've changed the name back to "Rail Station" and moved "Buses to Kendal & Barrow" to the description tag. The bus stop name should be the name that appears on timetables or in the NAPTAN dataset. Signs with "Buses to Kendal & Barrow" or similar often appear at train stations but this is not the actual name of the bus_stop.

Please be careful when modifying public_transport objects

The tagging of roads with `bicycle=yes` seems unnecessary. Otherwise, every residential road in the country should have `bicycle=yes` explicitly set.

A better solution would be to add `bicycle=no` where there road type allows cycling, but the particular instance does not.

You still have not answered the question of where the data has come from? Speed limits aren't generally visible from `Bing aerial imagery`. Did you carry out a survey?