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?

No problem. Some other user(s) had partially reverted it and I thought I should do the rest

I presume ford=yes on Pinewood close is accidental?

Thanks for updating the other half of bus 727. You've changed the route in a few places, and the bus stops along West North Street have been removed from the relation. I presume this is based on local knowledge and the traveline data is incorrect?

In PTv2 route relations, the ways don't have a role. They need to be added to the relation in the order that a bus/vehicle would travel the route. This can be quite difficult to do using the ID editor, but is rather easier using JOSM

Thanks for updating the bus routes. When modifiying bus routes please check whether the `public_transport:version:2` tag is present on the bus route relation.

The ways in a PTv2 bus route relation don't have the `forward` and `backward` roles.

In this changeset you added `role:forward` on some ways in the 555 bus route which is PTv2. I'll fix this shortly

Please don't add stuff to openstreetmap that doesn't exist. Reverted changeset. changeset/60537916

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. I'm just wondering whether this nursery should be tagged as `amenity=kindergarten` rather than school.

amenity=kindergarten

Changset message should read `Add pharmacy in hospital`. Appears JOSM changeset bug still not fixed.