Hiya. Thanks for trying to improve the map. I’ve had to revert this changeset (and your following one which deleted the bridleway) as the bridleway does exist as a right of way, and hence should be on the map.

The reversion is here: changeset/176137143

You can see the right of way using the ‘Public Rights of Way’ overlay in the ID editor, or on the council’s definitive map here: https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/

The legal right of way needs to be mapped. We have precious few legal access rights to the countryside as it is, especially around the Lune, so allowing some to be lost is not good for public access to the countryside.

I realise the ford is only usable in very low water, but this should be mapped by adding additional tags to the bridleway to describe its physical state. It’s already mapped as smoothness=impassable and horse_scale=dangerous for that reason. If you know of more physical tags which would be appropriate (see the wiki: osm.wiki/) please add them. :)

Finally, with a few exceptions (which are available in the ID editor), OS maps are *not* a permissible source for information for OpenStreetMap, as their licensing is incompatible with OSM’s. Please do not use them for edits. See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence

I realise this is a lot to take in. Unfortunately, UK public rights of way law is complicated, and OSM necessarily has to reflect that.

Happy to answer any questions you might have :)

I am well aware of those guidelines thank you.

Better that stuff is mapped from out of date imagery than not mapped at all. :)

Thanks for removing them (changeset/175994064), although in future it might be better to change them to use the removed:* lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay), or changing the tagging to tree stump (natural=tree_stump), to avoid someone accidentally re-adding them from outdated aerial imagery in future. Ta :)

Heya, thanks for your edits around Troutbeck recently. Are you aware of osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse ?

Oops, thanks!

I’ve changed it to man_made=pontoon in changeset/175799940

Fixed in changeset/175799833

You’re right, it’s a typo. Thanks for spotting it and letting me know! Fixed in changeset/175760386 :)

It’s neither a pier nor a quay, but man_made=pontoon would be appropriate, I think.

Hiya, I see what you’re trying to do here, but I don’t think a pontoon can be described as a building. It doesn’t have walls or a roof.

I think the waterway=pontoon tagging is as valid as waterway=dam.

My suggestion is that either some other tagging needs to be found which describes a pontoon as a structure which is inherently present only on water, or waterwaymap.org needs to be updated to not flag waterway=pontoon for loop errors.

Thanks, adding a note or a fixme would also work. :)

Hiya. If a POI’s website doesn’t resolve any more, that’s a really good hint that the business has closed/changed. Rather than removing the broken link, please take the time to work out what’s changed and update all the details instead — that’s a lot more useful for the map. Otherwise you’re just removing the (often) only sign that a POI is out of date, making it harder for others to spot that it needs updating. Thanks.

I’ve reverted this change (as changeset/175634900) as above. Happy to chat if you think the reasoning above is incorrect :)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892400/Variation_Notice_BM4252IJ-V003.pdf confirms that these generators are permitted for <500 hours of operation per year, in emergency situations. They’re diesel fuelled.

I don’t think it warrants being mapped as a power plant. It’s just part of the components of the nuclear power plant.

Heya, what’s the reasoning for adding this? As I understand it, the gas turbines at Heysham 1 & 2 are for internal use for running the Heysham plant in case of a trip or grid disconnection; they don’t export energy to the grid. They’re also gas fuelled, not oil fuelled, I believe?

Great. I’ve made the changes in changeset/175498881

No worries, one of the great things about OSM is that things can always be changed again to improve them. If you could leave a bit more contextual info in your changeset descriptions, that would help avoid misunderstandings in future, but that’s a very minor suggestion from me. Thanks again for your work on the map :)

Ah I see! Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for jumping to conclusions about your tagging. :)

I suggest using a lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) and a note to indicate the history of the path, then. This will avoid other mappers unknowingly adding it back in future, because the line of ground mats will hang around on aerial imagery for several years.

How about the following?

demolished:highway=path
foot=private
note=Line of temporary ground mats for work on Aira Force, removed once work was completed. Not a path and no right of access.

Cheers :)

Hiya, thanks for your contributions to OSM for the NT so far, it’s great to see the NT continuing to improve the map!

In this case, the highway tagging is correct and needed, so I’ve re-added it in changeset/175451682.

Features are mapped on OSM even if they’re private, with tagging like foot=private indicating that. (OSM maps what’s on the ground, not just what’s accessible to a certain group of people.) In this case access=private wasn’t correct, as that sets the default access for all transport types to ‘private’, which means that private car access was enabled for the path. foot=private is sufficient.

Thanks again for your edits! Happy to discuss this further if you have any questions :)

Ah, good point, I hadn’t realised that tag was deprecated now. Thanks.

Added oneway:bicycle=no and cycleway:left:oneway=-1, and changed cycleway:left from opposite_track to track in changeset/175448878

I think we’re in agreement that the sign applies at the transition point between the shared use section and the pavement.

If you really want to push forward an interpretation of bicycle=dismount tagging that means the way it’s on is necessarily part of a cycle route, you’ll need to get consensus amongst the community to change these wiki pages:

- osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#966
- bicycle=dismount

---

As a note, often putting words in CAPITALS when typing on the internet is interpreted as shouting, and shouting generally doesn’t help a discussion. A less shouty way of emphasising a word is to use *stars* or _underscores_ around it.