Building heights in this changeset appear to be in feet not metres. A value of height without units defaults to metres.

Hi Risteárd,

Is the cycleway mapped crossing Vaughan Way outside Highcross accurate now? Looks inconsistent with aerial imagery. I haven't been this way since all the construction started, so am out-of-date.

Jerry aka SK53

Hi,

I'll take a closer look later tonight. The online editor does slightly odd things if you try & rearrange areas which are meant to avoid bigger issues, but can be pretty puzzling at first impressions.

SK53

Hi Simon,

Thanks.

You can see a fair bit of footpath/PRoW mapping done some years ago around Gringley on the Hill. Three of us met up there and covered areas to the N, SW, S and SE. This link (https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=54.209&lon=-1.23322) shows another OSM-based map which aims to be more useful for UK-based walkers (showing designation tags, etc). Lancaster Road S of Gringley is a good example of a farm track which is only designated as a public footpath. Similarly there are a network of tracks which are designated as bridleways on the Everton Carrs.

Cheers,

Jerry

If you have added the designation tag, you can keep it as a track (i.e., obvious signs of vehicles using it), and just use the highway=bridleway for public bridleways which aren't used by vehicles (provided there is enough headroom for a rider : I'm sure some public bridleways are not practicable for horses). Keeping the two separate is useful for understanding the character of the way.

HTH,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Jay,

You marked Fairham Drive as having a width of 5.25 m. I think all the roads in the interwar council estates are actually 13ft or 4m (at least that's what I make measuring them both in iD & on old maps on the NCC site).

Jerry

Reverted in changeset/125242625

I dont know if you can remember if way/24016687 looked like a track? It does on aerial images, but I merely drove past last time I surveyed in Kneeton.

I plan to change the first bit to track for now.

Jerry aka SK53

I dont think this is the way you intended to edit!

Hi,

I'm trying to understand what the climbing:grade;uiaa grades represent as I would have expected them to be in latin rather than arabic numerals.

Can you explain at all?

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Keith,

I added the main path into Cwm Glas Mawr in 2010 (changeset/5850064#) when I used highway=footway. At that time IIRC there was some discrepancy about usage of footway or path and different people used either tag. I fact I can see that I used both in the area over a short time of editing in 2010.

However it was found relatively quickly that, despite it's popularity, there are significant problems with highway=path. The most notable is that access rights are utterly obscure, summarised by Richard Fairhurst (author of a previous web-editor, creator of cycle.travel) here: @Richard/diary/20333. I just checked these paths with Komoot & currently it quite happily routes a touring bike up Cwm Glas and an MTB along Crib Goch! I suspect these ways need access tags.

Effectively path works but requires much more work by the mapper to capture details of access, surface etc. The footway/cycleway/bridleway requires much less basic info both for mappers & data consumers.

Unfortunately we never resolved the 2 approaches in the UK, although everyone I know who maps lots of public rights of way tends to use footway etc.. One useful source of info on access tags & so forth is the National Trust page, as this is based on both considered work and a lot of consensus from OSM mappers.

Sorry I can't give you chapter & verse, my last attempt to clarify things didn't meet with approval in some quarters.

tl;dr at a minimum add foot=yes & bicycle=no to these footpaths.

Jerry aka SK53

Please do not do this. highway=path on its own does not provide any information about who can use it or suitability If you do want to do this at a minimum add foot=yes and bicycle=no when you change from highway=footpath to highway=path.

Jez - thanks
redd - I think you can fix things which are obvious typos without needing to contact people. In this case I clearly was trying to square the building whilst focus was in the tag field (and possibly then added a couple of Josm shortcut keys as well!)

Thanks for picking it up. I add the "x" which then allows me to divide a way in iD without it creating a relation. I should of course remove the "x" now, which I did do on the other half. As the building & the panel dont coincide it needs editing anyway.

You can see it on Waymarked Trails: https://riding.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=14445709.

I've now created the Pegasus Trail relation, so that you can just add new sections to the relation. Scroll down to the relations section in the LH panel, and search for it (or use the number). It's easier to search if you add adjacent sections (the editor automatically gives a selection of nearby relations).

J

Hi,

Yes, highway=bridleway is fine in the UK. You do need to join the ends to the roads/paths it connects to, normally the editor should glue them if they are close enough. The colour of the point changes from white to a greyish colour. I've done this for you this time (changeset/124721392) as it may help to have a concrete example.

If this is a public bridleway I would also add designation=public_bridleway (you have to scroll down in the edit panel to find "All tags", add a new tag and the entries should autocomplete).

One other thing is that it is worth mapping gates, horse stiles etc. along the path if you have collected such data. There looks to be something at the S end of this stretch.

The other thing is that a long distance trail is normally mapped as a relation, but this may be much too complex for a newcomer. The ref is fine as a starting point, but as you add more links it will be necessary to learn about relations.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi,

I've now added the Lidl building, so the position of cycle infra you added may need tweaking.

Cheers,

Jerry aka SK53

The flush bracket is on the metal plaque low down on the pillar, so the elevation is not of the top of the pillar. Most elevations on maps in the past 30 years are probably not derived from the triangulation done using trig points anyway, so the issue is fairly moot.

A general rule of thumb is that if a thing has been mapped in a particular way for a long time then that is the consensus across a body of mappers. This is particularly true for somewhere like Whernside or Roseberry Topping where it is likely a *lot* of mappers have visited. It's usually best to respect that consensus even if one differs in opinion.

Jerry aka SK53

When the trigpoint is located at the summit they are the logically the same object. The spot height on the OS maps will be that of the flush bracket on the pillar, rather at ground level.

OSM keys were deliberately designed to allow for objects which are simultaneously two things at once (pubs with accommodation, convenience store with a post office, etc., memorial trees). Over time some get separated (often when something mapped as a node gets remapped as an area), but this is a feature not a bug. IIRC Snowdon's summit point is a trig point and an orientation table (tourism=viewpoint). One consequence of this is that one should never rely overmuch on the usual meaning of a word in English (I'm always a bit frustrated about tourism=hotel, because about 80% of my hotel stays have been work-related).

I guess you made the Whernside alteration too, but offset the trig point from it's actual location, rather than ensuring it was co-located with the peak tag.

I appreciate that the iD editor may emphasise one over the other, but that should be addressed on the iD github page, not by changing the data.

It's not just the UK where physical trig stations coincide with summits: I can think of several in Switzerland.