Hiya, thanks for this edit. In future can you please split edits by geographical area? This edit covers most of the north of England, but actually only touches four cities. It should have been four changesets instead. This allows local editors to more easily check edits in their area.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for more information

Thanks!

Other nearby residential roads are 20mph, so it’s possible that Mears Beck Close is also 20mph. The only way to be sure is to survey, which is easy enough to do with StreetComplete.

Perhaps the edging stones were deliberately left in place to act as lane markings for the shared use pavement. It looks that way to me.

If there’s no cycle lane here, what tagging would you choose to represent the demarcated shared use pavement at the side of the roadway, which is not physically separated from it?

Haha, I (and several others) keep an eye on all the edits in the NW. Mostly to catch spam/vandalism, but also to correct errors and mistakes from creeping into the map. It’s a lot easier to fix stuff when it’s changed rather than years down the line!

No problem. Sorry for all the technical detail — imagery alignment is unfortunately a necessary evil when adding a lot of geometry on the map.

> Did you correct here, or do I need to revert?

I corrected it here (and on your other edits where similar things have happened). :)

Heya :) It depends a bit on what the facility is, but generally the approach is to have an area which forms the outline of the facility, and that has the tagging on it for the facility itself. So in the case of a complex train station, it’s recommended there’s an area which encompasses the whole passenger-accessible part of the station, and that contains tags like the station name and operator. Buildings within that area are tagged only with building-specific properties, such as the number of storeys they have and their material.

The wiki has some good examples: osm.wiki/Railway_stations and it’ll probably also have examples for other large common facilities.

I hope that helps? Happy to answer questions if it doesn’t!

Thanks, that makes sense. The ROW order only refers to public footpaths (not BOATs or any wider permissions), so I’ve changed it to access=private foot=designated, which is the most specific tagging for a private farm track which is a designated footpath.

I’ve also added designation=public_footpath as per osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths

Changes in changeset/159262334, let me know if there’s any problems with them

Thanks!

No worries, I didn’t read it as adversarial

> We can turn this around and ask "what is the source for tagging these ways as access=private

I gave my sources, as I do with all my edits.

The context for my comments here are that Pete Owens has been making tens of edits in the area which seem to quality as mass edits — changing lots of things without actually surveying them individually. Several of them have been demonstrably incorrect. He does not provide sources for any of his edits.

So this isn’t an isolated incident of me being picky about the precise details of an edit. It’s an attempt to deal with a pattern of behaviour which I’m pretty close to reporting to the DWG.

---

With that aside, I see your point about access=destination. However, that is the recommended tagging for public roads which are signposted with a “no motor vehicles except for access” sign, which I don’t believe these driveways are. To tag private driveways that way would be confusing.

It’s also unnecessary: aiui the implied right of access would apply even to access=private ways.

And it’s contrary to what the wiki recommends for tagging driveways: service=driveway

imo the question comes down to whether these roads should be tagged as access=private or have no access tag at all. And I believe that depends on who owns the land and whether the road is adopted by the council. The OSMUK Cadastral Parcels say the land is part of the same cadastral parcel as the houses, rather than the main road. I don’t know of any publicly licensed sources which could say whether the road is adopted by the council.

Hiya, what sources are you using to assert that these three ways off Jevington Way aren’t private?

way/972045110
way/972045084
way/856409059

They’re included within the Cadastral Parcels of the houses rather than the main highway, have a different surface from the main Tern Grove road, and their centrelines doesn’t appear on OS OpenMap Local. Those facts all point to them being private.

Hiya, what sources are you using to assert that this isn’t a private drive? It’s included within the Cadastral Parcels of the two houses it fronts, has a different surface from the main Tern Grove road, only serves two properties, and its centreline doesn’t appear on OS OpenMap Local. Those facts all point to it being private.

Super, thanks for confirming.

Thanks for confirming. I think everything is correct on the map here now then.

I’ve fixed the alignment of houses on Smithy Close in changeset/159127696

Heya, thanks for adding houses and other detail around Natland, it’s nice to see the map becoming more complete round here.

One thing — the aerial imagery around Natland is offset from ground truth by about -0.97,-1.04 metres, so please adjust the imagery before starting to edit. You can do this with the ‘Imagery Offset’ settings under ‘Background Settings’ on the right.

The aim is to align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay. This is needed because aerial imagery is only very roughly aligned by the supplier, and its relative alignment changes every time it’s updated, and changes across the country. Some places are several metres out of alignment compared to ground truth. So when editing map geometry it’s important to align the imagery before starting.

There’s more information about this on the wiki (osm.wiki/Good_practice#Align_aerial_imagery_before_tracing) but I’m also happy to answer questions if you have any

Happy editing :)

Hi, I’ve re-added this bridge in changeset/159127095 and used a lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay) to mark it as missing, so that people editing the area in future can get some context about why the footpath seemingly randomly has a gap in it.

If I’m misinterpreted what you mean by ‘missing’ please say. It’s quite hard to tell from such a brief changeset comment. Please consider providing a little more information in your changeset comments in future, so other editors on this collaborative project can follow along. In particular, listing your sources makes it easier for edits to be checked. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks.

Have you surveyed the speed limits here now? What’s the source of your information?

For anyone reading this in future, this is a follow-up to changeset/159067050

5mph seems a bit unlikely for the whole of Mears Beck Close. Have you surveyed this?