Hiya, just a quick reminder that instead of deleting objects and redrawing new ones, it’s better to keep the object and change its shape. It keeps the edit history.

See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

This is legally a bridleway, so why change it to a footpath?

The physical difference between highway=footway and highway=bridleway on the ground is not well defined, so arguably both are correct, but I don’t see a motivation to arbitrarily change from one to the other here.

Is this following some National Trust tagging guidelines somewhere? If so, could you please point me to them? Thanks

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. access=no is almost certainly not the correct tagging here, as it means nobody can physically use the track at all (even if they have permission).

See access=*#Introductory_examples

You probably mean access=private?

I removed the crossing nodes in changeset/138420785 as per the above

Heya, thanks for your edits to Kentmere :)

Is this definitely a cave (natural) or an adit (man made)? If the latter it’s probably best tagged as man_made=adit, disused=yes. See man_made=adit

Isn’t it redundant to add the crossing nodes, given that the crossings already exist as ways? That’s just creating another object which is going to need all the same tags as the crossing way. That feels like it violates osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element to me

Is there precedent for this, or some tagging guidelines saying to add the nodes?

Changed in changeset/138219581

Looking at https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=15.4&lat=54.48184&lon=-3.16768&layers=10&right=ESRITopo, the OS 1937-1961 maps definitely have ‘Looking Steads’ as a label for the gully on the west side between Glaramara and its subsidiary peak.

So it looks like this should be re-added as a place=locality.

It’s named on OS OpenData StreetView imagery. Even if that label refers to a locality rather than the peak (which is possible, and the hill-bagging.co.uk summit would then be named for its proximity to the locality), it should be tagged on OSM as a place=locality.

Pretty sure it is a named peak: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaramara#Summits and the canonical database at https://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/virtualearth.php?rf=2392

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. What were you trying to do here? The lines you edited are the railings around the corner of the pavement, not anything to do with sideroad crossings.

I’ve undone the change as changeset/138115119, since the railings were in the right place before and shouldn’t be connected to the road centreline. :)

Is a crossing point missing here or something like that?

See other parts of the same page: access= is used to set the default access for the way. For example, access=*#Transport_mode_restrictions

I suspect something else is going on, because OpenRouteService seems happy to use way/26487015 for pedestrian routing, for example, and it has access=private foot=designated. See https://maps.openrouteservice.org/#/directions/Keldwyth%20Drive,Windermere,England,United%20Kingdom/Wynlass%20Park,Windermere,England,United%20Kingdom/data/55,130,32,198,15,97,4,224,38,9,96,59,2,24,5,192,166,6,113,0,184,64,90,0,152,3,160,19,128,70,0,89,200,13,134,202,5,96,1,153,167,40,3,157,129,216,1,160,114,226,1,153,73,55,174,74,151,114,21,42,8,13,196,76,185,38,229,6,20,164,221,149,66,76,70,11,224,48,123,26,237,40,142,227,43,160,193,32,120,128,128,1,213,60,8,137,176,229,0,11,202,0,91,92,229,120,131,219,64,64,1,155,192,0,219,162,224,128,133,66,163,224,0,91,192,3,89,32,3,152,218,7,67,160,135,163,102,33,129,69,227,102,67,123,123,162,34,195,162,192,128,2,250,213,0,0

Hi, I don’t know what app you’re using to route, but it’s the app which is at fault here, not the previous access tagging.

The foot=designated tag should override access=private to allow foot routing. access=private sets the defaults, and is needed to ensure that the track is not considered as a public road for vehicles.

See access=*#Road_where_residents,_pedestrians_and_cyclists_are_allowed

👍

Would it make sense to add tagging for the physical condition of the track, to discourage satnavs from taking the route? highway=track#Physical_condition

For example, tracktype=grade3, smoothness=horrible, width=2m (these are guesses; I haven’t surveyed it)

That’s fantastic, thank you for taking the time to do that, it’s a big improvement on the state I left it in!

Nice work!

I’ve been working on Milnthorpe Sands where the Rivers Bela and Kent meet, but I haven’t tackled the tidal area and flats around them, since I thought it was a bit complicated for the time I had available.

If that’s an area you fancy working on, please go ahead and don’t worry about conflicts with my edits. It’d be good to see that area finished off! :D

That’s fantastic, thank you for coming back and tweaking this :) And thank you for your efforts on tidal areas around Lancashire/Cumbria, it’s looking great!

Hi, are you importing this data from somewhere?

Curious as to why (for example) you’d delete way/1116256235 and replace it with the lower-resolution way/1182851447

…held off on editing the Kent and the coastline because they’re part of a lot of boundary relations which I really don’t want to mess with right now.