The changeset message should read ‘houses’ not ’hours’, sorry!

Has the signage changed here when you surveyed it recently? The previous most recent survey (changeset/133637602) noted that the signage says ‘cyclists dismount’. So even if it’s incorrectly using that in combination with a no cycling sign, that would suggest the correct tagging *is* bicycle=dismount.

Changing this to bicycle=no is quite a drastic move, given that this way is part of NCN6.

Out of interest, why do you keep tagging pavements as bicycle=no? As far as I understand it, bicycle=no is the default for highway=footway (otherwise highway=cycleway would be used).

Parts of this path (such as way/93075646) are tagged as designation=permissive_footpath, so foot=permissive is the appropriate access tagging — why have you changed it to foot=yes? If the path is indeed a permissive footpath, it should definitely be foot=permissive (and probably also bicycle=permissive if bicycles are allowed at all). See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Permissive_footpaths

Why add bicycle=yes to these roads? It’s part of the default access tagging for roads.

Hi. Can you please stop adding tags to buildings which belong on the surrounding area or station node instead. The tagging for the building material belongs on this building, but the tagging for the station Wikipedia page, name, etc. belongs on the station node as it applies to the whole station not just this building. Please read building=train_station to find out more. Thanks.

I’m not sure what you mean by “misregistration of the OSM objects”. The OSM areas in Keswick are not consistently aligned to the Cadastral Parcels at the moment because various people in the past have also failed to align aerial imagery before editing, and I am only slowly able to fix it, block by block.

This extreme of misalignment is some of the worst in the northwest of England, and is local to the Keswick area. Most areas in the northwest have misalignment between Bing imagery and Cadastral Parcels of <1m in both dimensions.

See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Align_aerial_imagery_before_tracing for more information about imagery alignment

I have fixed it in changeset/157792815

Hiya, please align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay before editing in the UK. The Bing imagery is not guaranteed to be aligned to ground truth. In Keswick, it’s out by -3.68,-0.92 metres.

Your edit broke the alignment I had carefully fixed in this area 4 days ago. Please be more careful.

Hiya, thanks for the efforts you’re putting into additional tagging on OSM.

A few pointers from reviewing some of your most recent edits:

- Please pay attention to the semantics of tags. The wikimedia_commons tag you used in this changeset is to point to a category or single image on the Commons, not a Wikipedia page. See wikimedia_commons=*.

- Be careful to not add duplicate tags to other objects. A number of the objects (like churches or train station buildings) you’ve edited recently already had all the tags you added present on the way which encloses the building. This mapping is correct, and the duplicate tags did not need to be added to the building. See osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thanks!

Heya, welcome to OSM and thank you for your edits around Newby Bridge.

If you’re going to be adding a lot of houses or realigning existing geometry, please make sure that the aerial imagery you’re using is aligned to a source of ground truth first. Typically in the UK this means aligning it to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay before starting editing.

This is necessary because the aerial imagery is not perfectly aligned, and its alignment varies across the country and over time (as it’s updated). So aligning geometry to just the aerial imagery may introduce errors, and will also be redundant after a few years.

The offset for the Bing imagery from the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels around Newby Bridge appears to be 0,-1.25.

See osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery#Binding_objects

Any questions, just ask :)

See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom for the tagging guidelines for footpaths in the UK more generally

foot=private is not the right tagging to use here, as it means the path is legally not accessible.

The normal tagging for paths on access land is foot=yes unless they are on the council’s definitive map as a public footpath (most aren’t). In that case the tagging should be foot=designated.

There is a precedent for a non-public-footpath on access land being closed for conservation near Broad Crag — see way/1086252957. In that case we went with disused:highway=path foot=no.

I think that tagging is appropriate here too, so I’ve made the same changes here in changeset/157705044

way/1086252957#map=18/54.455882/-3.211548

For anyone who comes across this later, one of the paths was re-added in changesets changeset/157585730 and changeset/157586347

Have they been blocked off or purposefully rerouted or removed recently? They have very strong traces on Strava heatmap: https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?sport=Run&style=hybrid&terrain=false&labels=true&poi=true&cPhotos=true&gColor=blue&gOpacity=100#16.38/54.494095/-2.818097

No worries, thanks for taking the time to add info about the Marton Arms!

Nice work!

Hiya. Are you sure it’s correct to change all those access=customers tags to access=yes? access=yes means access is allowed to the general public without restriction. In my knowledge of Center Parcs, people are only allowed on site if they are customers (i.e. have booked a holiday there), which suggests that access=customers is correct.

Thanks, I’ve removed the names from the roads in changeset/157036855. :)