Heya, are you sure Brierholme guest house is trading? They were removed from the map by (I think) the owners last year (changeset/152038550) and their website says they’ve closed (https://www.brierholme.co.uk/).

(For anyone reading this in future, this edit is in response to changeset/169802057)

(The update was done as changeset/169808418, for reference)

Thanks, both of you, for looking at this. I believe there’s another sign about the restriction at the Caspian Way/Ashton Road mini-roundabout, which would mean that the entire section which IvaKraljić tagged should be tagged with some kind of maxweight tags, I believe. Not just the section nearest the A6 crossroads.

I suspect the weight restriction is for the benefit of the Piccadilly Lane and Ashford Road bridges.

Heya :) Thanks for explaining things.

I think the reasoning for the consensus in 93427676 still stands, so I’ll revert this changeset (done as changeset/169833912).

I acknowledge that multiple access tagging is confusing for routing systems, but foot=yes;discouraged is the best description of this footpath that anyone’s come up with.

I can’t remember if this footpath is physically signposted as discouraged, but other similar tidal walks on the bay are signed that way, and it’s common knowledge that people really should only attempt the walks with a local guide. But legally there’s nothing to stop them having a go themselves.

If, having read 93427676, you can suggest a better tagging scheme which encapsulates all the thoughts mentioned there, then we can surely change all the local tidal footpaths accordingly (not just this one). :)

I hate the fact that people trash bothies, but the information about their locations is public and has been for a long time (each MBA bothy has its own map on the MBA website, for example). Social media is probably more to blame for people trashing them than them being mapped on OSM.

If you’re trying to stop bothies being trashed by removing them from one map, that’s not going to work. That horse has bolted years ago and the stable door is broken.

See discussion on changeset/169829036

See discussion on changeset/169829036

In changeset/169828708 you deleted Shenavall Bothy, which is on the MBA website. In 169828646 you deleted an emergency shelter which is open to all. In 169827499 you deleted another bothy listed on the MBA website.

Even if OSM was curated to the desires of landowners and estate owners, these things are going to be mapped sooner or later, so the only approach is to make sure their access restrictions are tagged appropriately (i.e. add access=private if they are actually private), not to delete them.
future.

Please also provide a useful description for your changesets. This is a collaborative project, other people need to know your reasoning for making changes. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

I’ve reverted all your changes so far. Please do not delete any more bothies. If tagging is missing/incorrect on private ones then please fix that on a case-by-case basis. The wiki is a good help for appropriate tagging: tourism=wilderness_hut

Why are you deleting bothies? Please stop now.

No problem, I‘ve reverted this change because it would have been very hard to fix the geometry.

If you want to re-add the relation for Ease Gill then go ahead (I’m afraid I couldn’t keep that when doing the revert). imo it’s a good idea to keep boundary lines separate from stream centrelines and other physical features. It’s too difficult to satisfy the requirements for the geometry for the boundary and for the stream with one line. :)

Thanks for taking the time to split up the wikidata IDs

Why change foot=yes;discouraged to foot=no? Access by foot is possible (and discouraged), not impossible.

Did you read the discussion on changeset/93427676 ?

That would be great, thank you :) Good work on all the other StreetComplete stuff, it’s nice to see all this detail being added!

Heya, thanks for doing StreetComplete around Keswick recently.

This changeset duplicates a lot of names — it adds the name of the shop as the addr:housename of the building containing it. Please don’t do that — there should only be one name for each thing in OSM, and in the case of shops it’s typical for addr:housename to be unset.

Put another way, according to OSM the postal address for the co-op in Keswick is now:

Lakes & Dales Co-operative (name),
25 (addr:housenumber) / Lakes & Dales Co-op (addr:housename) Main Street (addr:street),
Keswick (addr:city),
CA12 5EF (addr:postcode)

Hopefully that shows why the addr:housename is redundant here. It would only be relevant if the building had a name as well as a house number, and that name didn’t change between shop tenants.

Good suggestion. I’ve added service:vehicle:sales=caravan service:vehicle:rental=caravan in changeset/169604647

I thought about service:caravan:sales=yes (etc.) but that would have broken ID’s interpretation of the data. Refining the value of the tag seemed like a more backwards compatible change.

If a car dealer is also selling caravans then the dealership could be tagged with service:vehicle:sales=motorcar;caravan.

Why have you merged the administrative boundary line with the stream centreline? The geometries were different. The stream now doesn’t follow the streambed on aerial imagery.

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)