Why do you keep changing this to re-add the closed footpath?

Heya, thanks for improving the accuracy of Far Costy Clough.

In future you might want to take a few extra moments to preserve the history of the existing mapping, so that its evolution over time can be tracked.

See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Well the edit which marked it as closed due to conservation (changeset/135305975) is by AWMapper, who has been updating footpaths from the National Trust GIS database over the last few weeks, and says they’re a NT staff member on their profile (@AWMapper).

I’ve commented on the original changeset/135290950 to ask about signage for the path closure.

Someone is saying here changeset/135709994#c1025020 that this path doesn’t have any signage on the ground to indicate it’s closed (last week, at least).

Is that something that’s planned? What’s the NT policy on signing or barricading paths which are closed for conservation? Thanks :)

Reverted in changeset/135711366

This footpath has been closed by the National Trust for conservation reasons, which is why it was removed from the map. See changeset changeset/135305975

Hiya, thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!

Please note that you can press the ‘Q’ key in the editor while an area is selected, and it will automatically square the corners of the area. It’s quite helpful for drawing regular buildings (or caravans).

Yeah, the council did a surprisingly good job at planning and communicating the cycle diversion while the riverside path was being redone!

Thanks for the detailed reply! I see your reasoning for thinking it’s a SUP — the signage is not very explicit at all.

The cycle infrastructure here was upgraded a couple of years ago, somewhat temporarily, as a diversion while the riverside path was closed. See https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/news/2020/jun/changes-made-to-cycle-route-diversion. Before then, there was less cycle infrastructure on Caton Road, and the crossing opposite SHC Hire was much simpler (if I remember correctly).

Following the diversion route on
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/28e119001b074dfd80266367e8543a5c shows how it was put in on the east side of Caton Road, and was always designed to cross opposite SHC Hire.

So I don’t think the segment of pavement just south of it was ever designed to be a shared use path.

The crossing at the south end of it only has a picture of a person above its buttons, not a person and a bike. The pavement on the other side of the crossing (around Bridge Square Apartments) is definitely pedestrians only.

So to me the balance of evidence is suggesting that this change should be reverted, but I appreciate it’s not clear on the ground! Thanks very much for the time you’ve put into this (and other edits round Lancaster!). :)

Hi, are you sure about these permissions changes? Last time I looked at that bit of pavement there were rumble strips at its north end, indicating it’s not a cycle path. And at the south end it leads to a pedestrian-only crossing.

Has that changed in the last months?

Heya, thanks for this edit. In future, though, could you please limit edits to a smaller geographical area? This one spans most of the north of England.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for reasons on why this is important.

Thanks!

Hiya, thanks for updating these houses! I just wanted to let you know I’ve made some further edits to the area, so if you spot any mistakes please go ahead and fix them / let me know.

So you’re aware, the aerial imagery in this area is not quite aligned properly, so if you’re going to make further edits here please make sure to set an imagery offset of -1.78,-1.51. You can do that in the ‘Imagery Offset’ settings in the ‘Background’ sidebar on the right. You’ll want to enable ‘OSMUK Cadastral Parcels’ at the same time — this provides the ground truth for working out how to align satellite imagery.

Also, you might be interested in trying the StreetComplete app (https://streetcomplete.app/) for surveying things like house numbers in future. It makes that kind of update a lot easier than doing it in the ID editor!

Have a great day :)

Bing offsets: 0.71,-1.1

(See discussion on changeset/135290950)

(See discussion on changeset/135290950)

Heya, thanks for your work around Scafell at the moment! :D

Rather than deleting the line here, it might be better to keep the line but remove the highway=path tagging from it, and leave a note on it (as you have) which says it’s closed for conservation.

That way, if someone else comes along later, adding Lake District paths in from Strava Heatmap without actually surveying them in person, they hopefully won’t accidentally re-add this path. (People do often do this, unfortunately.)

I’d use http://revert.osmz.ru/ to revert this changeset, then re-edit the path to remove the highway=path tagging and update other tagging.

Hope that makes sense. I’m happy to make those changes if you want.

Have a good day :)

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