Thanks for sorting that out :)

(For anyone else who stumbles on this in future, the change was reverted as changeset/135289782)

Hi, have you walked this footpath recently?

The line has a note from October 2022 saying “highway=footway tag removed as the footpath has been officially closed due to erosion of the riverbank.”.

Is the erosion now fixed?

Having a pitch drawn is definitely better than nothing, but a long thin pitch is definitely incorrect (no football pitch is long and thin). Surely it would be better to make the pitch roughly the right aspect ratio, based on where the goals are? Even if it’s not exact, it’s going to be closer to being the right size than a long thin pitch is.

In the UK, you can (and should) use the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels to align Bing imagery consistently. See osm.wiki/Property_extents_in_the_United_Kingdom

Typically current Bing imagery is misaligned by 0 to ±2m in this area of the UK.

Heya, could you please consider drawing football pitches a little wider in future? No football pitch is realistically this long and thin.

I’ve fixed it in changeset/134861087

Hi again. Please make sure your changesets cover a small geographical area. This one covers a significant part of the UK, and as a result has notified mappers from north Wales all the way through to Glasgow of your edit.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

This could have been three separate edits for Telford, Warrington and Glasgow.

Thanks!

Hiya, thanks for your recent edits to improve the access tagging for the NT around Windermere!

One comment: when adding culverts to streams (like way/932521760), please make sure that the whole stream doesn’t accidentally get tagged as being culverted. :)

I’ve fixed this one in changeset/134298528, but it’s something to watch out for in future edits

Ta :)

Sounds like a reasonable change, please go ahead and do so!

I’d completely forgotten I added this tagging, and don’t have a plan for updating it regularly. As you say, these things can change quickly, so if you think the tagging is better off removed, then I wouldn’t object.

If the water:quality tagging is removed, perhaps there’s scope for adding a ref:environment_agency=ukd1203-45700 or something like that instead, so the current bathing conditions can be looked up mechanically?

That also highlights the fact that the EA monitor several different bathing spots around Windermere and report them separately, so perhaps water:quality (or some reference ID) should be tagged for them separately rather than for the lake as a whole.

I’ve reworked things here as changesets 134255681 and 134255877. Hopefully the tagging is now both technically correct and reflects what the original mapper was trying to record.

As discussed on changeset/134061448:

- golf=lateral_water_hazard is (for some reason) an area tag, so needs to be applied to a stream area rather than a stream way
- The south-westernmost golf cartpath appears to be a car park access road (see the gate onto Lindeth Lane) so should be tagged as such. Added the car park to make its destination more obvious

Further updated as changeset/134255877

It’s not important to me at all, I hate golf. But it obviously was important to the person who added it. Just because they got the tagging a bit wrong doesn’t mean it should just be deleted.

See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Do_correct_errors and osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

I have re-added it in changeset/134165637

Thanks, that looks like an appropriate tag, I’ll try and remember that for future use :)

Sure, there might be a better tag than natural=water_sink, but I don’t think natural=sinkhole is it, because natural=sinkhole requires a significant depression in the ground.

In any case, after some more research we can avoid the issue because the stream actually appears to be culverted and then heads further west. I’ve changed that in changeset/134238394 :)

Reworked a bit more in changeset/134238394. Looking at the older OS mapping (OS 25 Inch 1892-1914) and the newer OpenData StreetView, it looks a lot like Escow Beck is culverted below the two footpaths/tracks before re-emerging and going into the Lune.

It can’t be a sinkhole here because the underlying geology is not limestone.

By that logic we could delete the whole map, it would certainly be a fast way to make sure there’s less incorrect data.

To me it doesn’t look like the incorrectness/‘damage’ around Keswick golf course is so beyond repair that it warrants deletion. If you don’t have time to fix it, perhaps leave it and someone else will?

How was it incorrectly drawn? Looks OK to me, though I don’t play golf so am not an expert on rough.

And the removal of golf_cart=designated from the cartpath?

Reverted as changeset/134237926

Why remove golf=lateral_water_hazard from way/866718873?

Heya, I don’t think this is right. The water sinks into the ground here, but there is no surface depression caused by subsurface breakdown. i.e. No sinkhole, just a water/stream sink.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinkhole for some of the terminology definitions