Additionally way/1158676960 is shown on the Carmarthenshire PRoW map as a public bridleway (you can view this by selecting the relevant overlay layer in the editor).

Hi,

The road heading E from Cwrt y Cadno is a public road but is marked as horses being disallowed. Can you check this as it would be most unusual, but also leaves a dangling bridleway going off it just after the road crosses the Cothi.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Guy,

Sorry if I tagged the wrong changeset: the public bridleway is absolutely fine. It's the paths mapped as bridleways through the heather that concern me. I presume this is open access land which is why there are now so many paths, but that doesn't confer automatic rights for riders.

I'm not sure if there's a simple way to change these (short of going there and establishing which paths are suitable for riders). At present they allow walkers anyway, riders and cyclists will just have to be cautious. I'll ask around to see if anyone else has encountered this scenario (I've done a bit on a grassy common in Berkshire where some paths were mown for riders).

Unfortunately, although I have friends in the area it's a very long time since I visited.

Jerry

Hi,

The paths over Frenni Fach look rather narrow for bridleways. Are these actually in use by riders?

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

I'm going to revert this as it is completely inaccurate.

The Crusader Island was constructed way before this to enable servicing of the two estates built either side of the A453 which needed better access than that provided previously when Clifton Lane was a more minor road. It was in existence prior to 1992 (inadmissible OSM source). The Crusader itself was opened in 1984 (https://whatpub.com/pubs/NOT/56/crusader-nottingham), also not OSM admissible. There are numerous GPS traces on the OSM site showing it's existence before this and also OS StreetView maps from 2010.

The actual opening of the A453 dualling scheme occurred at a range of times. It was mapped incrementally as it was constructed and opened (see for instance changeset/30021732).

Whereas the entire scheme was probably completed on the date you have added: you don't have enough actual knowledge to provide this information correctly. Changing well-established road classifications in an area which has seen a lot of mapping over the years and therefore likely represents a substantial consensus of mappers is usually to be avoided. In this case it is not clear that you have adequate local knowledge in any case.

Jerry aka SK53

You may need to do some more clean-up on this import. I just came across way/238016257 with an enclosing lake object from the import, Looking at aerial imagery these are just one lake. I'm presuming you did some filtering & comparison with existing OSM elements.

Jerry aka SK53

I've changed this to not:wikidata. The stucture visible in Bing Streetside is clearly not a "dual arched masonry bridge of 1849". As trigpoint says this was demolished when the dual carriageway was built.

For heritage details the wikidata tag is not really adequate on it's own. Please consider adding ref:cadw in Wales or HE_ref in England, and the listed_status=*. These are much more useful for someone verifying OSM data in the field, and allow direct linked data to the actual data originators rather than having to do complex SPARQL queries (which often perform poorly and are inaccessible to most contributors).

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Once again this is incorrect. You have used a site relation, this is not a site. You have not incorporated either the Ningbo or Malaysia campuses.

Did you not think the OSM mappers in this area have not thought of doing something like this, and rejected it. I certainly have on many occasions since 2009. There are other ways to manage finding parts of a university without creating cumbrous relations which will get changed every time one part gets updated.

Please also do not try to adjust areas of individual parts of this university. I maintain the boundaries very carefully based on UK cadastral layers, regular survey etc.

Please dont do this. I explained why you should not on the OSM-UK Loomio site.

The wiki is incorrect!

Oh take that back, have seen the photos now: not true steps.

Shouldn't this also have a section mapped with highway=steps (I realise it might not be possible to identify exactly where, but even a small section would improve information to routers).

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Will,

Can you remember the source for "Pinfold Close"?

This has recently been updated from building_name to name which is clearly incorrect. The current owner does not use the name, but I see the house is referred to as Pinfold House on the Bramcote Local History website.

Obviously the simplest thing would be to restore your original tag (which I will do), but I wondered if there might be other tags which could be used.

Jerry

Hi Marc,

You seem to misunderstand how OSM works. The OSM-UK community has well-established principles as to how to map place=*: they do not use the population at all, but place the population in the sensibly-named population tag. Britain has a number of places with a small population which have been cities for hundreds of years. There are differences between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom too. More recent elevation to city status has been through official charters, such as the recent elevation of Southend-on-Sea to city status.

You must always take what is written in the wiki with a pinch of salt. A population-based approach has never satisfactorily coped with differences between, or even, within countries.

But, the most important rule of OSM is about building consensus. If the thousands of contributors in the UK have been happy with a particular value of place=* for 10 or more years there has to be an absolutely compelling (documented) reason for change.

Yours,

Jerry aka SK53

check_date is very much a tag only regularly used by StreetComplete (and for good reasons: I'm not going to mark every shop I see which hasn't changed with a check_date).

OSM is not fantastically well stuctured to allow capture of this kind of meta data, largely because a check_date increments the version count. Separate metatags might help, but that would require a new API call and database changes.

Thanks, I forgot to mention that I did recently look at grading of paths in the Lakes (after the Barf incident around Christmas) and wrote a couple of entries about them:
@SK53/diary/400702
@SK53/diary/400712
http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-little-surprise-hidden-in-os.html

The key difference between T4 & T5 is that the latter involves some (easy) 3-point climbing technique at some point. So Broad Stand is probably a good candidate for T5 if it were mapped.

Elsewhere in Britain experienced hiking guides have done some good work on checking the harder routes: such as on An Teallach. There were some good threads on mastodon (linked in my posts). So I think we are collectively working towards consistent usage of these scales in the UK. A bit harder to know if these are consistent with usage elsewhere.

One point is that the T4- and T4+ values could be used if there is a need to separate alternatives which are of different character. At present the Foxes Tarn ascent of Scafell is graded T3 so this is not needed.

I'm also very pleased about the action concerning the short-cut path marked bypassing the col at Broad Pike (way/1086252957#map=17/54.45589/-3.21152&layers=D).

Jerry aka SK53

The wikidata advice although on the wikipage for a long time is probably the personal opinion of a long-term wikimedian and wikidata enthusiast. Not necessarily a considered view of it's value in the community.

The problem with all such well-intentioned edits is that they push up the last edit date and version count for little value. This has the effect of making it harder to spot things which DO need checking at a local level.

Doing a basic join on value from OSM to wikidata works just as well as adding an additional key. The wikidata item already has an entry for the OSM key which effectively does this work already.

Please dont use railway=platform & public_transport=platform. These cause these elements to show up as live passenger platforms which is not helpful. Always stick a lifecycle prefix on these elements.

I think this is now overgraded. T5 is not something likely to be encountered on any widely used 'path' in the Lakes or most other places in the British Isles.

Lord's Rake is (or certainly) was an unpleasant ascent, and it does have some objective dangers over recent years from rock fall etc. This gives a good feel for the crux on a standard T5 route https://www.hikr.org/gallery/photo2405005.html?post_id=122152#1. A steeply angled slab with exposure down to a glacier. This is significant harder than anything on Lord's Rake.

I realise that the SAC Scale may be interpreted differently in the UK, but in the longer term it is better to keep to the original definition. Not only does this help consistency, but will not result in British hikers being misled as to what the T4, T5 and T6 alpine hiking grades actually entail.

The isolated track near Mousthwaite Comb looks rather odd. It also doesn't seem to be visible on imagery taken in August 2022.

What value does adding a wikidata tag perform here? Presumably this is via the name suggestion index.