This was primarily mapping paths in the sand dunes, but also correcting paths in the woodland and removing a few paths that were just sections of beach in reality. While the general conditions in the area are known to me, the majority of the mapping I've done in this edit is based on comparing Bing Aerial images with the Strava heatmap. I knew there were enough errors and missing or incorrect paths to make this a reasonable thing to do. I may visit in the next few months to double check my work.

Hi JamJar II - I've changed the tagging on the path from Corbenic north along the Braan - because it was tagged as highway=path it was showing up on mapping as an actual path. My wife and I tried to follow it last weekend - without success. I'd understand the correct tagging for a proposed feature like this to be highway=proposed + proposed=path - so that's what I've used. That should mean that even incompetently designed renderers shouldn't accidentally display a path here.

I wonder though whether this should be in OSM data at all? I think 'proposed' is intended for things that are 'about to be built' rather than just ideas. Am I right that this is just an idea?

Looks like you've done a huge amount of work around Dunkeld - thank you. We had a wonderful long weekend, and I'm sure much of the mapping we were following was yours :-)

OK. Thanks. I've made an edit which I hope leaves things in an acceptable interim state, to be corrected over time (or by one of us if we're there again). I've deleted the central parts of the paths (where they met) because I know they didn't exist there. I've left a path stub on each of the paths where they were mapped as meeting the surrounding main path. It's likely that there's something like that on the ground, and this indicates to people that they can walk that way.

Hi ChrisEdits - I've added a note on Eglinton Park ( note/2792231) suggesting that the paths I think you added up to Belvedere Hill shouldn't be mapped as paths at all. Clearly that's just my opinion, so I'm following up here so you have chance to disagree. It's an odd situation, because clearly the breaks in the trees provide routes up to the hilltop, and to begin with I thought it may make sense for these to be mapped as paths. But what I noticed, which tipped my opinion further, was that there are actual paths through several of the sections of woodland - which are clearly the routes that most people use. I've not just deleted the paths because I only had time to follow one of the routes, and it might take closer inspection to do a good job. Would welcome your thoughts :-)

Hey 'stewb123' - I happened to stumble upon the edit you'd done to openstreetmap a few days ago. I'm thinking that it might not achieve what you were looking for. Did you hope to end up with a marker like shows up on Google Maps? Depending what you're trying to achieve there may be a much better way. Feel free to ask.

Yes indeed. We did more than 'check' this! We followed the line on the map, wading through deep grass and nettles, squeezed between a growing crop and an overgrown hedge. An interesting and adventurous part of that days bike ride...

Hi both - (ClarkstonCorrect / crossmyloof) - it looks like you're editing the same change back and forth. Can I suggest that this be taken to a wider group for guidance? Might I also suggest some additional use of changeset comments, comments on closing notes, and similar - all help to keep people cooperating...

Hi both - (ClarkstonCorrect / crossmyloof) - it looks like you're editing the same change back and forth. Can I suggest that this be taken to a wider group for guidance? Might I also suggest some additional use of changeset comments, comments on closing notes, and similar - all help to keep people cooperating...

Just noticed this change (to proposed). Just to say that I approve. The fact that this has been mapped as a route has been bugging me for months. In the longer term I'm enthusiastic about us beginning to use some system for indicating what is and is not signed. I wrote some comments on the wiki here: osm.wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#Signed_and_unsigned

Hi Whiteyhmfc - having looked again at these edits I've had a go at tidying up. In general you'll see that in Edinburgh (and many other places) the convention is to map pavements (osm.wiki/Sidewalks ) using the 'sidewalk' tagging scheme rather than as separate footways... unless they are completely separate from the road they are beside. I hope you're happy with how I've dealt with this - do get in touch if not. You clearly have local knowledge that Openstreetmap would benefit from.

Having not heard from you I've fixed the errors I see here too. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you think I'm wrong to do so. Write a note here in the changeset comments or send a direct message.

Having not heard from you I've fixed the errors I see. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you think I'm wrong to do so. Write a note here in the changeset comments or send a direct message.

Hi Whiteyhmfc - taking a look at your recent edits here I'm not convinced that the mapping of the footways in this changeset are reasonable. As with other edits - do reply here or send me a message if you'd like some help as a new mapper with getting to grips with Openstreetmap. If we can talk about what you were aiming for here there are plenty of people who will be happy to help. The main thing to remember is that footways should be mapped where they properly exist on the ground and are separate from the normal uk 'pavement'.

Hi Whiteyhmfc - looking at this edit it looks like you've mapped a footway around the exact border of the park here. Were you intending to map a footway just within the park? I don't imagine that the park boundary and the footway are the same thing? I'd be very happy to help you get to grips with editing if you like - reply here or send me a message and you'll find lots of people willing to help. Thanks

Hi Whiteyhmfc - I was taking a look at this edit and if I'm right about what's there on the ground we'd normally use the sidewalk tag on the road ( sidewalk=* ) to map what I take to be an ordinary pavement along the west of Moir Crescent (north of Macbeth Moir Road). If you're a new mapper I'd be happy to help you get to grips with the conventions. Send me a message. I've added a note to that someone more local could check and make any corrections.
See: note/991050

Hi Jan. I stumbled across the Fort Augustus airfield you'd mapped while I was doing something unrelated. Is this is a private strip? All the details I can find on the internet suggest this. I've added 'aerodrome=private' to the node in an attempt to indicate this (although it seems that there isn't really a properly agreed way to indicate this yet). I was wondering whether, if I'm right, it is a mistake to give the airfield a name. To call this 'Fort Augustus' if it's just a private strip seems misleading.
All of this just based on guesswork and internet research (with only a tiny bit of local knowledge) so if you have local information don't hesitate to stick to your initial opinions on this :-)

Hi Essex_Boy - I've reverted the edit to Castle Rock - back to 'peak'. Would be happy to see more detailed discussion of the options, but I don't think you're going to get agreement on natural=volcano. See the discussion also on this note: note/542849 Sorry, this is a prominent location so I've not waited for long since Herve Saint-Amand's query before doing this.

Hi Marscot - I was wondering - what is the 'Indy Camp' you marked at the Scottish Parliament? Surely not a campsite in the normal sense of the word?

Andy: I stumbled across cycle route '1' in Croy a few months ago. Note here: note/420711 Today at work someone mentioned Cumbernauld's routes - leading me to make the connection to your work to map these. Can I assume that route 1 in Croy is part of these... there were 'end of route' signs at Croy station when travelling south/west, so I'd concluded it might end there - presumably I'm wrong.

Both points of view seem really valid... ...if pushed I'd come down on the side of them being mapped before open. After all, the presence of a station doesn't necessarily imply that a train can be caught there. So long as an ordinary person would look at what's on the ground and would see a completed station. Actually the world at large probably won't care... and it is quite nice to see them mapped...