Hiya, looking at https://mpr.lt/c/48118/t/229418909, the description for the challenge is just “challenges description” repeated several times. That’s not very helpful to anyone.

Is there a description somewhere of what objectives you’re trying to achieve, and how the challenge tasks have been generated?

Thanks

Heya. It looks like post box CA13 89 is already mapped at node/3370196453. I assume you only just surveyed it as being on Fern Bank, so that suggests it’s been physically moved from Sullart Street at some point, or the original mapping was wrong.

If you could, it would be handy to survey the old location on Sullart Street and see what’s going on there.

If that’s not something you have time for, that’s fine; I can leave a note on the old location so someone else can check it out eventually.

There’s a map of postboxes here: https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/progress/CA/CA13/#11/54.6147/-3.3296

Hope you have a good day :)

Great, thanks. If you could please update people on changeset/152889219 with what you get back from the local ranger, that would be lovely.

Heya, what was the motivation for this edit? I would have thought it would make a bit more sense to have the river ways connected in the lake, so they’re connected for routing/navigation and plotting of catchment areas (e.g. for https://waterwaymap.org/#map=11.69/54.5246/-3.3715). But I can also see that it’s a bit weird to have a river flowing through the middle of a lake, especially when it changes name part-way across. I’m wondering if you’d found some official guidance about this kind of situation? Ta

That’s great, thanks a lot, and happy editing! It’s nice to see someone putting effort into the map around Cockermouth

Hiya, thanks for your helpful contributions around Cockermouth recently. When editing access tagging for things, can you please read the OSM wiki for guidance on the tagging though? osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom

access=no specifically means that no physical access is possible to anyone, regardless of whether they have permission.

The correct tagging here is access=private. I have corrected it in changeset/153085001

Thanks! I’ve linked the NT to this on changeset/150437359

Another user has come up with a query to show all gates which are tagged as locked=yes on a footpath: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Nb7

It seems that this tagging affects a number of the gates on NT routes which have been edited recently. Is this tagging definitely correct?

See further discussion on changeset/152889219

Thanks!

Heya, further to discussion on other changesets: was this edit made based on an in-person survey of the access situation, or is it an attempt to get Komoot to route along this way?

If it’s the latter then would access=private foot=designated be more correct, bearing in mind the tagging guide for footpaths/etc? osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths

Hiya, thanks for your helpful reply. Sorry I was abrupt earlier, I was rushing and I shouldn’t have.

You’re right that it was motorcar=no before. I looked into it a bit more closely and this road is a bit odd. It’s on the Wainwright C2C long-distance footpath, so needs some form of public foot access, but it’s not part of the council’s definitive highways network. So on reflection, motorcar=private seems more appropriate than access=private.

I’ve changed it to that in changeset/152990451

Thanks!

I’m so sorry, I completely failed at checking this when I wrote my comment. Trying to do too many things at once. The relations/route master relation hierarchy look good to me, and were already like that before I wrote my comment. Sorry for wasting your time!

Heya, thanks for adding this. Should the northbound and southbound routes be in a route master relation for T3 as a whole?

osm.wiki/Relation:route_master

Fixed in changeset/152982224

This road is private, not public. Removing access=no without a survey is not helpful. Please don’t change access permissions without doing a survey.

Heya, just a reminder to please osm.wiki/Keep_the_history.

way/331366453 and way/331366455 were both deleted and recreated quite similarly in this changeset, losing the record of other people’s contributions to the area.

Thanks :)

Hiya @Olivia Ragone. There’s been some discussion recently on changeset/152889219 about the change of node/262689051 from a stile to a gate, and the addition of locked=yes to it.

Even though it’s tagged as foot=designated, the addition of locked=yes means that software like Komoot no longer wants to route walkers along the path.

Is there still a stile next to the gate? Is the gate actually locked? I’m guessing the answer is yes to both, and the gate is locked to prevent vehicle access? If so, I wonder if the stile needs to be re-added to the map and a little path forked off the track, over the stile and joined up with the path on the north side again, to fix Komoot routing.

I worry there might be other cases like this where gates have (correctly) had locked=yes added to them, but this inadvertently breaks hiking routing.

Interested to hear your thoughts on it! I hope I haven’t misinterpreted the situation, though there’s a good chance I have. :)

Nice to know about that technique for debugging Komoot, thanks @JassKurn.

I’ve reverted the access changes as changeset/152933272, since they made the access tagging less correct.

@Dan12345678 if you have walked this path recently then please edit the offending gates to mark them as locked=no, if that’s correct.

Looking at node/262689051, up until version 6 it was tagged as a stile. I wonder if there’s a stile next to the gate, and routing a footpath over the stile would overcome the problems of the gate being tagged as locked=yes. Presumably it’s been tagged that way because it’s locked to vehicles.

The addition of locked=yes was made by a National Trust GIS officer. I’ll comment on their edit and query the locked=yes, because it might be part of a wider pattern of changes which stop Komoot from working in other places.

Hiya, what was your intention with this edit? That footpath was already marked as a public footpath with the correct tagging (foot=designated and designation=public_footpath). foot=yes is less definitive than foot=designated. See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths

Thanks for taking the time to survey it Artasen!

For anyone following along, the updates were done as way/938862878, and the way is now amenity=parking (with other appropriate tagging) rather than amenity=yes.

Hiya, just a hint: you can press ‘Q’ when a building is selected to automatically square its corners. It makes for a neater map :)