Geograph photos:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408432
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1036267
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408921
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408923
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4019525
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408927
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/407050

Hm, yes. I downgraded it from route=bicycle to route=mtb, so I'm not adding any incorrectness that wasn't there already :), but I guess it probably needs two relations (one mtb route, one walking route).

Seriously, there is no bridge over the Severn at Saxon Lode. There was once, but it's been demolished. I've been past a dozen times on our narrowboat and I would definitely know if there were a bridge there. Perhaps be a bit more careful adding features from historic OS maps? :)

Thanks!

(By "this", I mean relation/6196005 of course - I should have made that clear!)

I think there's an issue with having this as an otherwise untagged multipolygon. "Old-style multipolygons" (tags on the ways, not on the relation itself) are still common in OSM. Given the lack of substantive tags on the relation, this could potentially be interpreted as an old-style multipolygon, leading to a grand kerfuffle with a road following the outline of the park - indeed osm2pgsql will do that under certain circumstances.

Since this relation appears to exist for archiving purposes only, could I suggest either deleting it, or tagging it as something not a multipolygon? (Perhaps type=collection)

Hi!

Please don't add names like "NCN 7" to paths. In OpenStreetMap we record that a path is part of NCN route 7 by making it part of a "route relation". This shows up on the OpenCycleMap layer and other bike-specific cartography.

Adding it to the name as well is duplicate information and makes it difficult for cycle routers and renderers to show the correct name.

Thanks!

Richard
(cycle.travel and Sustrans ranger)

It shouldn't really be either, tbh! Nowhere else in the world is a mountain bike route tagged as route=bicycle - that's what route=mtb is for.

I've pretty much given up arguing this one but I wish at least people could agree on a static (albeit wrong) network/ref combination - I've now got to spend another 24 hours regenerating my US routing graph because the tagging change has broken my previous override. :(

(Sorry, not directed at you particularly, Steve - I realise there are some other strong-willed people editing this relation...)

@Lutz: it would be kind if you were to write in English when changing data in England mapped by English mappers. Pointing to a German-language wiki page is not really very helpful.

Hi. Mousehole is a lovely place. :) I wouldn't tag it as 'waterway=dock' though - that's for a place where the water level can be controlled (e.g. by a lock), and Mousehole is entirely tidal. Look at the Bing imagery and you'll see it's low tide and the boats are all sitting on the bottom!

Ah yes! Fixed. Thanks for spotting it.

Hi,

Is there a reason you're moving place nodes to arbitrary locations like this?

OSM guidance is that nodes should be sited "in the perceived centre of the place, for example the town or village square to the central in terms of facilities and/or transport routes or next any appropriate central monument". (See osm.wiki/Places .)

This is particularly important for routing - e.g. if someone asks for a route from Canning Town to Ipswich, they will expect to start in the centre of the area, not on a road adjacent to a primary school.

It was correct before - the railway=station tag tells you it's a railway station, you don't need to repeat that in the name= tag.

Please do not add route=road relations in the UK except for E roads. I'm sure you're well-intentioned but they serve no purpose (as a road can only have one ref) and make the map significantly harder to edit for newbies.

Please revert these edits. If you would like to add more then please take the discussion to the talk-gb mailing list.

Hi Clifford - highway=unclassified is the standard OSM tag for a minor rural road of reasonable quality (assumed paved in a developed country), as well as those with more of a connecting role in urban areas. The introductory paras at highway=* explain it well.

The TIGER import assigned all geometries of class A41 to highway=residential. In many urban areas this was a good fit, but in rural ones it was (and continues to be) contrary to standard OSM practice.

Much of what the import tagged as highway=residential is more accurately highway=unclassified, highway=track, or in many cases entirely fictitious - there is no road at all. This means that it's difficult to use unreviewed highway=residential in rural areas with any degree of confidence: routing over it may equally send you up a beautiful paved road or into an impassable quagmire. See https://twitter.com/marcpfister/status/601782213688987649 for a typical result!

Assigning roads to the correct category that would have been used had they been mapped from scratch, rather than the arbitrary highway=residential mapped to the A41 class, therefore aligns with OSM in the rest of the world, results in more nuanced cartography, and lets data consumers make better decisions about which roads to choose.

doogal.co.uk is a direct interface to Google's geocoder data. See (for example) http://www.doogal.co.uk/ShowMap.php?postcode=OX7%203PH, open up the web inspector in your browser, and look at all the requests to maps.googleapis.com. This data can't be used in OSM.

Welcome back! :)

+1 - please don't do this. It breaks standard tagging practice in the UK, and makes the path more confusing for newcomers in most editors (as it'll be shown as a "Path" preset rather than the more descriptive "Cycleway").

highway=path is significantly *less* useful than highway=cycleway, as you can assume a good-quality surface with 90%+ certainty from the latter, whereas you can't with the former.

If you must retag in this fashion, then you need to add a surface tag. But given that the three-tag combination adds precisely no information over the single tag (I run a cycle map and router so have pretty extensive experience in this...!) I really don't know why you would want to.

Could you tell me *how* this improves the street network for routing, please?

We need more people mapping old Welsh chapels! Lovely buildings. :)