Hi Andy,

I know it was a long time ago, but there doesn't seem to be any trace of this vineyard on aerial imagery anymore.

Jerry

I agree that would be the ideal way in which it would work, but in practice it is not. The problem with the wiki is that it is often the voice of a few contributors often with particular bees in their bonnets, rather than a true community resource. No-one has grasped the nettle. The last time I tried something along those lines with footpaths, my edit was immediately reverted. This also tends to discourage contributing to anything other than pages on very minor tags. A good recent example is someone deciding that an immensely popular way of mapping pavements should be marked as depracated.

Unfortunately what this illustrates is that much of the wiki tends to be documenting one view rather than trying to describe the consensus. It may also be seriously out-of-date text having an un-dead existence.

The tag rwn has 650 odd uses in the UK (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=rwn#values). An excellent reference implementation using walking/cycling etc routes is Waymarked Trails (https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/) which not only is global, but also is created by a serious trail user. Nearly always it is better to look at concrete mapping than rely on the wiki (not least because it's often difficult to remove stuff - there are still two descriptions of footpath mapping the UK despite one of them being accepted by all serious footpath mappers including the National Trust.. In this case there are a number of national MTB trails in Switzerland (lonvia lived there for a while), so these provide examples of how things have been tagged elsewhere (route=mtb, network=ncn). A quick check shows cycle.travel does not route over the col between Safien & Uors, but down to the Rhine Valley and back up Val Lumnezia, see https://cycle.travel/map?from=safien&to=Ilanz&fromLL=&toLL=46.775575,9.2054956 (however Richard may have special logic cases for this).

Anyway, this is what I do. Look for analogous cases already mapped, check the tagging, check usage states. If it seems sensible adopt that. If one is in luck the wiki will say the same thing.

Personally I'd like the wiki to be descriptive not prescriptive, but cant see it happening.

It's really very straightforward, Norfolk Coast Path & Peddars Way are National Trails and the Suffolk Coast Path is not. Thus long distance trail mapping with nwn is analogous to Sustrans routes having ncn: they are signed trails supported by a national body. What surprised me was to see more national trails mapped in Scotland, but apparently things like the Kintyre Way (which in conception & initial implementation was a local initiative) now have this status.

On the general point it's usually not a good idea to extend general concept of a tag by adopting it for something related but which is different in significant ways. It can have the effect of effectively negating all the implicit defaults which then need to be re-established and made explicit.

New imagery makes a fantastic difference!

Either is fine. Often a point enables stuff to be done quicker and can be refined later. You can see my own (unrefined) efforts mapping shops etc in Armagh City from 3 years ago osm.org/#map=18/54.34771/-6.65228. Doing things this way enabled me to capture most of the shops from a couple of short walks, one in the evening, the other the following morning. A quick check suggests this is common elsewhere in NI too. For a shop within a shop, like pharmacies or post offices, a point is perfect.

Adding the building gives more context (particularly helpful for the post office counter in a bigger store, as they mostly are these days), but you can add a building and leave the original point marker (node). Generally I like to do larger places (supermarkets, standalone pubs, big shops, churches, GP surgeries etc. as buildings with the type of amenity directly added to the same area. A big advantage of adding as an area is that one can then see that there's nothing missing whereas with points you need to make assumptions. Buildings which are landmarks are always useful to map as areas.

For smaller shops & amenities a point is often a lot easier than trying to work out how multiple businesses have divided up a building (e.g., looking at a Geograph picture of The Square I see there's a hairdresser with a beauty salon above on the first floor).

In some places the aerial imagery is just not good enough in which case points are fine then too.

The important thing is that everything can be iteratively refined so it's not necessary to worry overmuch about it, and find what works for you.

Jerry

PS. There's an all-Ireland project for adding buildings https://tasks.openstreetmap.ie/

Many thanks for your first contribution to OpenStreetMap.

I've taken the opportunity to add Eurospar itself and mark the old location of the post office as disused.

If you have any queries I'm happy to answer them, but there's also a recently active group in Newry.

Regards,

Jerry

Hi,

I've noticed you've been adding rooftop solar panels around the Isle of Wight, and as polygons too. Great stuff.

Just thought I'd say that you can also add the tag location=roof for rooftop installations. It's not necessary, but helps data consumers, particularly if underlying buildings aren't mapped.

I presume you know the solar mapping tracking page http://osm.gregorywilliams.me.uk/solar/index.html ?

Cheers,

Jerry aka SK53

For St Peter's Church I think you should have building=church and disused:amenity=place_of_worship. name might need to go to old_name too. The building doesn't render which makes it a bit odd given it has a listed status.

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Tom,

In case you find some more, we now generally add a location=roof for roof-mounted solar panel installations (and can get more complicated counting the modules & adding orientation too).

Generally rooftop solar takeup is lower in Greater London than elsewhere, plus they're often hard to find on a lot of pre-WWI housing. Imagery quality doesnt always help either.
Across the country we're now just shy of 20% mapped cf FIT figures (probably 1 in 6 in reality). A big step from your pioneer mapping of them for BedZED.

Cheers,

Jerry

Definitely worth adding fences & hedges. I usually do, so must have run out of time when doing this (I was actually looking for plant galls as a recce for a nature walk). Not only do they help one "read" the countryside. I notice I've missed a few other things too.

Thanks for this, I cant precisely remember where I walked when I added this (I suspect up N side of Diamond Wood and thence to the car park. If I get the chance (& remember) I'll check if I have any photos of the point.

Anyway ground truth is what OSM is about & we've noticed more people making use of it during lockdown precisely because it may have more local paths.

Quite a few permissive paths do disappear after the landowner stops getting the relevant subsidy (I was out in Leics a fair bit on ones which were disappearing a couple of years ago).

Cheers,

Jerry aka SK53

Many thanks. Ideally the editors would flag this up.

This edit is totally incorrect & misleading. People use OpenStreetMap for real world important activities, it is not a toy. It will no doubt be reverted, but you must not make such edits in the future.

Hi,

The service roads added here overlap with a solar power generator. I suspect that the imagery used was not necessarily in alignment with existing mapping. I presume you have a filter in the editor which hides some other features and also that the editor does not generate a warning.

Please can you review this with all features enabled.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Looks like it could do with location=submerged & layer=-1 (and possibly wheelchair=no) to bring it in line with node/2941119302

Hi,

I noticed that you mapped rooftop solar panels on a house in Cargreen, but also added an output of 400kW which seems unlikely (4kW might have been intended). Could you check please.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi & Welcome to OpenStreetMap,

Judging from your comment these paths are public footpaths. We have an explicit way of marking them which is not directly supported in the online editor.

We use a tag "designation" to describe the legal status of a path with values like "public_footpath. You can add these by scrolling down to the "Tags" section, click the "+" key and start typing designation, it will autocomplete and tab into the next box valid values will appear in the drop down.

We have a number of apps to facilitate mapping rights of way. This is Map the Paths (which shows the local official data, but in this case not compatible with OSM) for this area: https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.3879786&lon=-2.7815831&zoom=1&mode=0. Other Rights of Way resources can be found here: https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/. There is also a UK-specific map which shows more information (including rights of way) for walkers, this area https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=51.38774&lon=-2.75989.

I also notice in a later edit you've added two names to a path. You can split a path (right mouse & scissors icon) at any node and then each part of the path can have their own proper name.

Hope these remarks are of some use.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi,

Thanks for adding a solar panel (node/7593581420), but I think it's more likely to be 3.3kW than 3.3MW! If you're not sure you can just remove that tag or add generator:solar:modules with a count of the individual panels instead.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks very much for your first edit. This is precisely the sort of thing where local knowledge can improve our map & data.

I just wondered one thing. Is it still possible to get to Gadlys Road from Gadlys Street on foot? If it is the two roads can be connected by a footway.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53