What source did you use? It surely wasn't Bing Maps Aerial...

Thanks!

Hello,
Do you fancy having a go at adding the roads to the west to the NCN so that it is continuous again? Currently there is a gap: relation/167055#map=17/50.317603/-5.082389
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

osmuser63783 is correct - this is not about crossings (continuous or otherwise). There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by Facebook of how roads work in the UK.

@VLD319 when I was last in this bit of Manchester I crossed the M60 not at this interchange but at the one to the east. I can assure you that there the cycleways are all multi-use.
"foot" access in OSM should reflect legal access, and what Pete Owens says above is correct. If there is on-the-ground signage that says that a cycleway is cycle only then foot=no is correct, but if there isn't, it isn't.

Thanks!

Finally, the most important part. The thing that persuaded me to wake up the DWG ticket for all this yesterday was the comment on the forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613/239 that says "so I’ve gone back to Google Maps".

Just so that it is absolutely clear, the suggestion is that Facebook's mapping is so bad that it makes urban pedestrian routing impossible.

Facebook as an organisation needs to engage with that point of view, understand why people are saying it, and change what they do so that people no longer make that complaint.

The first part of "engaging" involves actually talking to other OSMers and understanding why they're saying what they're saying. To do this you need to actually need to talk and listen to the communities that you are performing your mapping upon.

In your case I first suggested it about a month ago on changeset/173023412 - you have been ignoring this request every since.

Please post to the UK area of the forum saying what you're doing, who you're doing it for and how you're doing it (either in one of the existing threads or a new one), and then listen to suggestions about how you can map things better. If you are unable to do this and continuing contributing in a way that forces people to say "so I’ve gone back to Google Maps" then we'll have to stop you contributing to OSM at all.
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)

> For your reference, here are links to relevant information from the OSM wiki:
> crossing:continuous=*#:~:text=When%20the%20road%20that%20crosses%20a%20continuous%20sidewalk%20is%20a%20minor%20service%20road%2C%20such%20as%20a%20driveway%20or%20a%20car%20park%20entrance%2C%20there%20is%20community%20consensus%20that%20this%20is%20not%20worth%20tagging%20explicitly%3B%20instead%20the%20node%20should%20simply%20be%20left%20without%20any%20tags
> osm.wiki/Talk:Key:crossing:continuous
> I hope this clarifies why I chose not to include these.

No? Those are pages referring to continuous crossings, which these aren't.

Imagine I was walking from one of the houses on the east side of the street here to the tram stop. Would I follow this route: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=53.386936%2C-2.256103%3B53.386806%2C-2.255834 ? I'm not familiar with Wythenshawe, but almost certainly not - I'd just cross the road.
What if I was pushing a wheelchair (something I spent about 5 years doing, so do have experience of)? Again, almost certainly not. If there's a high kerb on way/746745866/history I'd have to use the "official" crossing at way/746745864/history , if there isn't I would again "just cross the road", using the lowered kerb in front of way/726134898/history .

I don't believe that I can effectively map the sidewalks here as separate sidewalks _without actually going there_, and I don't believe that you can, either. If the imagery was clearer and everything was more perpendicular and just _larger_, then maybe it might be possible. I've previously suggested osm.org/#map=19/37.382552/-121.925734 on the forum as the sort of place where you absolutely could have a go at mapping things remotely, but I don't think this bit of Wythenshawe is.

Picking these up one at a time

> Regarding the discussion in the thread, a lead representative from our team, RVR015, responded on my behalf.

When was that? We got an email that _might_ have been in response to osm.org/user_blocks/18907 (but it's difficult to be sure, because they didn't actually do what that message asked - I'll pick that up with them). That was only received 4 hours ago, not 3 days ago when the comment above was written.

Hello josh09dmello,

You appear to be performing an undiscussed import. Please email [email protected] with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025110310000015] josh09dmello" to discuss. If you don't we'll like have to revert your edits.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

For info: osm.org/user_blocks/18910

Do you have any numbers to back up your "Local knowledge"?
Also, is that "local" as in Kirkuk, or "local" as in Iraq?

> The english and polish name referred to the mountain pass, not the road proper.

I can't comment on Polish, but if you say "Stelvio Pass" to an English person, if they've heard of it, they'll think of the road, not the mountain pass itself.

If I do an anonymous web search from England https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Stelvio+Pass&t=ftsa&ia=web , 7 out of 8 front-page results are about the road.

Agreed that sometimes "revert and please try again" is sometimes the best policy.

Hello,
I'd be a little cautious with adding locality names from OS OpenData such as node/13149024969 - I've lived just down the road on and off for 60 years and have never heard that name. Many OS OpenData names are historical (as in centuries old). What can be useful is to compare OS Streetview https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/54.0315/-0.9929/6 with OS OpenData Local https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/54.0315/-0.9929/2 - many historic names have been removed from the latter.
On its own, I wouldn't trust locality names from OS OpenData StreetView if they're removed from OS OpenData Local.
Sometimes old names hang around: Earswick Moor node/13138551943 is reflected in the name of way/148527483/history (although I suspect that that name should actually turn east away from Nova Scotia way/808799026/history ), but if the _only_ source of a name is OS OpenData StreetView I wouldn't add it to OSM because it's likely not current. Perhaps OpenHistoricalMap?
Best Regards,
Andy

I've re-added the memberships so that relation/1624090/history is now 679.

Is relation/19508737 basically the same as relation/19774128 ? If so, the shorter, partial one (the one I added earlier) can be deleted - but near Marsden I think the relation/19508737#map=19/53.604303/-1.940405&layers=T route is correct and the relation/19774128#map=19/53.604416/-1.940647&layers=T one is not.
Best Regards,
Andy

Something has gone very wrong here relation/1624090/history had 677 members before you edited it and only 664 afterwards.
Did you get any warnings on screen? If not, I'd suggest that you log a bug with Vespucci to get the problem looked at.

Hi Rebecca,
I've undone the deletion of part of the border. What was it you were trying to do? Maybe we can help if you say what it is?
Best Regards,
Andy