Heya, thanks for this. I’m not so sure about the tagging of Kinsey Cave as an area which is a cave entrance, so I’ve changed it to natural=cave and tweaked the heritage tagging in changeset/159505778. Take a look and let me know if you think I’ve made a mistake, thanks!

If you disagree with my edits, please engage in discussion about them, as I have been trying to do with you:
- changeset/159067050
- changeset/159073174

Calling them ‘vandalism’ is, I think, attributing malice to me where there is none.

As I put in the changeset comment for changeset/159358834, I removed these speed limits to prompt a re-survey, because I believe you did not survey this speed limit, and the limit looks potentially incorrect (all other nearby residential roads are 20mph).

If you can show you’ve surveyed it (a recent photo of the entrance to the road where a speed limit sign would be would suffice), then that would be great.

As it is, you’ve been making mass edits (changeset/159058612, changeset/159067914, changeset/159497487, etc.) without providing any sources for your data.

This has resulted in several demonstrably wrong speed limits or access tagging (fixes for them in changeset/159320399, changeset/159237475, changeset/159072623, changeset/158966610).
Having incorrect data like this in the OSM database is worse than having no data, as fewer people will question data which is present vs data which is missing. Missing data prompts people to survey it using tools like StreetComplete. Resurveying existing data is less common.

As someone with over 8000 edits to their name, I would hope you’d picked up best practices like providing sources and writing relevant changeset comments by now. (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments)

Please start to provide sources for your data, and engage in discussion with the rest of the community you’re participating in. If you have a disagreement about my edits, raise it with me — or if you don’t want to do that, then raise it with the Data Working Group (osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group).
If you continue to make mass edits, without providing sources, around the area of the north west which I am familiar with, I will be reporting your edits to the DWG, as I have lost trust in your sourcing for them. In that case, some form of mediation and escalation from them might be necessary.

Diversion finally removed in changeset/159414837 (oops, we forgot to update it sooner!)

After looking at this edit in a bit more detail, I have a few questions:

1. Why change way/1028435029 from residential to construction? Someone else edited it only a month ago and it looks like the estate is now mostly constructed and occupied (look at Mapbox imagery). I’ve changed it back in changeset/159360711.

2. You added building=yes to various buildings in Blackpool which were already correctly tagged with building:part=yes. See building:part=* for how building parts are tagged. I’ve removed the new building=yes tags in changeset/159360491.

3. Why did you delete several houses (like way/1304243429) in Middlesbrough? They appear under construction on Esri imagery. I’ve re-added them in changeset/159360654.

Thanks

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