Is it part of the A5074? It’s still tagged with ref=A5074.

If I’m reading the W&F network map correctly, it’s actually U5767, so should perhaps be tagged highway_authority_ref=U5767?

In fact, osm.wiki/Tag%3Ageological%3Dglacial_erratic specifically says that it should be used with natural=stone.

I’ve changed it to natural=stone in changeset/158161166

Hiya :) Are you sure this should be natural=bare_rock rather than natural=stone?

natural=bare_rock documents the former as being bedrock, which the Bowder Stone isn’t. natural=stone seems more appropriate to me.

I see you’re getting to the bit of Skerton that I have patchily mapped in detail in the past. It’s going to look a lot better once you’ve had a go at it :D Thanks!

Thanks, I missed that when reworking the junction. I’ve changed the new link to a primary_link and added some more turn restrictions in changeset/158070290.

I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing about the on-the-ground legal status of this path. Cycling is not allowed on it.

But I’ll repeat again: bicycle=dismount is documented as meaning that cycling is not allowed. It means the same thing as bicycle=no. It is appropriate tagging, but it reflects the signage and the fact that this way *is* part of NCN6 (as far as I can tell) better than having something tagged as bicycle=no in the middle of an NCN.

If this way is tagged as bicycle=no, someone who hasn’t been party to this discussion is going to come along and change the tagging again in future, based on seeing the ‘cyclists dismount’ sign.

Hi, you appear to have deleted Heysham harbour again. Please be careful not to do that :)

If you think the harbour should be mapped differently, please say what you think is wrong about the current mapping, and we can work out how to improve it. Thanks.

I asked what you saw when you surveyed it for making this edit.

Are you saying this is not part of NCN6? If so, where is NCN6 routed?

bicycle=dismount is not misleading. It does not mean that cycling is allowed — exactly the opposite. It means that cycling is not allowed, and that cyclists should dismount and push their bikes. How is that tagging incorrect for the signage which is visible on the ground?

That is unfortunate. Perhaps a better use of time would be to file a bug against those cycle routing applications to change their default assumptions and only use highway=footway ways if they are explicitly tagged as bicycle=yes/designated/permissive? Having that as a default would surely cause fewer routing errors from avoiding using pavements which actually *do* allow cycling (false negatives) than there are currently routing errors from suggesting using pavements which don’t allow cycling (false positives).

That is one way of modelling things, and it is correct. However, modelling the width of the pavement as part of the crossing is another, more detailed, way of modelling things, and it is also correct. In particular, it allows for a kerb node to be added, and for changes of surface along the crossing to be represented.

I’m not saying everyone needs to map things like this, but please do not remove detail which someone else has spent time mapping. Thanks.

Aah, I hadn’t realised the default tagging differs for highway=trunk vs highway=primary or lesser roads. Thanks for clarifying.

See bicycle=dismount

bicycle=dismount does mean that cycling is not allowed, and that cyclists should dismount and wheel their bikes. That precisely reflects what’s shown on that streetview image (which presumably is what’s still there? I last visited this area last year, and it’s what I remember being there.)

bicycle=no is documented as meaning the same, but also has a potential other meaning of bicycles being disallowed entirely, even when wheeled. So to avoid confusion it makes sense to me to tag as bicycle=dismount.

Tagging as bicycle=dismount also makes the reasoning behind the tagging very clear to any future surveyors, as it obviously matches the ‘cyclists dismount’ signage.

Can you please stop merging the pavement spans into crossing ways when editing things. The crossing does not extend across half the width of the pavements on both sides. Thanks.

Hiya, thanks for the time you’re putting in to improving Heysham port. Unfortunately this water area was not a duplicate: it marked the bounds of the harbour area, and is important. It was incorrectly marked as a dock rather than a harbour, which I’ve fixed. See osm.wiki/Harbour

I’ve re-added and improved it in the following changesets. Please let me know if anything in them looks wrong. Thanks.

changeset/158000303

changeset/158000779

changeset/158000880

Hiya. I don’t think access=yes is correct for any of the roads inside Center Parcs — aiui you’re only allowed to be there if you’re a guest, so it should be access=customers (or foot=customers and/or bicycle=customers for paths)

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