shop= implies that caravans are sold there, yes. Tagging it with service:vehicle:sales=yes makes that explicit. That’s not a bad thing, it removes uncertainty. Given that there’s no top-level tag (that I know of) for ‘caravan rental shop’, having service:vehicle:sales=yes makes it clear that’s not the intended meaning of shop=caravan service:vehicle:rental=yes.

i.e. I can see your argument but I don’t see why you’d go to the bother of removing the tag. It is correct, it adds clarity, and we’re not short on database space.

In any case, please use a more descriptive changeset comment than “POI Update”, to let others understand the reasoning behind your change. Almost all changesets could be described as POI updates. :)

Hiya, thanks for your edits around Kendal recently. Why are you deleting parking aisles? Have the car parks been rearranged since the aerial imagery was updated? Ta

The NHLE listing for this boundary stone has been updated (as of yesterday) with the correct location: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1132263

It was previously incorrect, which was probably the cause of the incorrect location being added to OSM (by someone blindly copying NHLE entries).

No problem :) geograph.org.uk is a great tool for this kind of thing for questions in the UK, if you need to use it in future (and appropriately licensed so it’s OK to use in OSM)

Hi, are you sure Lancaster Motorhomes and Caravans no longer does sales, only rentals? Their website seems to be entirely about sales.

I merged this with the boundary stone node on the road, based on geograph evidence and the official list entry in the National Heritage List for England.

changeset/169243583

If this is wrong, and you’ve surveyed it, and the boundary stone really is inside a barn, then please revert my edit.

Otherwise please double-check what you’re doing when you make edits. It seems really unlikely that a boundary stone would actually be inside a barn.

If you’re going to use AI to help with doing building outlines, could you please check what it produces before you submit it? There’s some pretty weird stuff going on in the middle of all these buildings.

I’ve fixed it in changeset/169218146

Heya, thanks for your updates to the priory. You deleted the electric bike charging socket — was that intentional? Does the priory no longer have electric bike charging for customers? Thanks :)

Heya, thanks for your edits recently. :) Did you know that you can press the ‘Q’ key to automatically square the corners of buildings when you add them? It makes regular buildings easier to draw.

Please also note that you should align the aerial imagery with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay (in the ‘Background Settings’ panel on the right in the editor) before editing, to account for parallax errors in the imagery. The error can be 0-3m in both dimensions and varies from village to village, so it’s important to get the offset right.

Happy to answer any questions you might have about this :) Happy editing!

I thought it would be something like that! Hope you’re well :)

This apartment block now has identical values for addr:housenumber and addr:flats, is that intentional?

Hah, yes, I can see how that could happen. Thanks for fixing it

(For anyone else who reads this, it was fixed in changeset/168764186)

leisure=outdoor_seating outdoor_seating=yes doesn’t make any sense.

Why make this change?

Thanks 👍

Heya, wrt node/3071545092, mapping a cattle grid and adjacent gate as one node is a pattern which National Trust have been using quite a lot in their recent edits to add walking routes in the area.

If it’s something which you think should be strongly avoided, you might want to drop user NTTrailsLSE a message and work out an alternate tagging scheme with them. :)

Thanks :)

> OSM not based on what you see on the ground?

Yes, but because of the rights of way laws in the UK defining RoWs as not necessarily the same as paths on the ground, the Definitive Map also has to be used to feed in to the OSM mapping.

Navigation apps should factor in the trail_visibility=no hint and ford=yes and weight their routing so it goes over the bridge rather than the ford.

In some cases, people have re-tagged historical footpaths (which are still legal rights of way) as disused:highway=footway, and kept the designation=public_footpath and foot=designated tagging.

I’m a bit hesitant about that here because there’s not going to be any physical sign of the ford across the Kent even if it’s commonly used. It’s a limestone-bedded river, so there will be no ruts in the riverbed. But if you’re certain the ford is completely out of use (rather than only occasionally used) then please go ahead and change the tagging to disused:highway=footway.

Hiya, thanks for checking this. The path is still a legal right of way (according to the Rights of Way overlay) so needs to be mapped, as it indicates a legal crossing of the river.

I’ve re-added it in changeset/168390611, but changed it to trail_visibility=no to reflect your survey

Thanks

Thanks for your reply :)

It’s interesting that all the imagery aligned with each other, but the Cadastral Parcels (or a high-accuracy GPS trace) are the source of ground truth for the UK, as they’re higher precision (and hence easier to align to) than aerial imagery.

It might be that Horton has a systematic parallax error in aerial imagery due to its altitude or the fact it’s in a fairly narrow valley.

I’ve reverted it as changeset/168352371

👍