Hiya, what source are you using? In its previous location it was on the high point according to OpenTopoMap.

Thanks :)

Hiya, thanks for continuing to try and sort this out. I don’t think the changes in this changeset are correct from a tagging point of view. The tagging as it was before looked correct.

Possibly the problem now is the apps people are using to navigate, or their interpretation of the map. Unfortunately neither of those can be sorted by editing OpenStreetMap! Your next step would be to find out which apps people are using which are telling them to take this path, and get in touch with the app authors to say they’re giving incorrect directions.

Hiya, this edit spans most of the north of England, making it very hard for others to review.

Please be mindful of this and submit changes in smaller, more geographically focussed changesets in future. This should probably have been 7 different changesets.

See also osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks :)

Hiya, this edit spans most of the north of England, making it very hard for others to review.

Please be mindful of this and submit changes in smaller, more geographically focussed changesets in future. This should probably have been 7 different changesets.

See also osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks :)

Hiya, when marking caravan sites as disused, simply deleting the name will not work. That leaves the site still tagged, but nameless.

Instead, you need to change the `name` tag to `old_name`, and `tourism=caravan_site` to `disused:tourism=caravan_site` as per the lifecycle prefix documentation (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix).

I’ve done this for this changeset in changeset/172631067, but I am not going to do it for all your changesets.

Happy editing :)

Thanks! I know there are a few other comments about semis/terraces which need splitting. I’ve run out of time to do those today, but if you’d like to do it, just enable the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay in ID, set the imagery offset to -0.49,-1.41 (which is what I think the offset is between Bing and Cadastral Parcels for Casterton), and split the buildings. I find it’s easiest to temporarily remove all the tags from the buildings to prevent them turning into multipolygons, then re-add the tags after splitting is complete. :)

Super, thanks :)

Heya, you added this Shap quarry information board in the middle of a field. Is it really there? Or is it closer to the footpath near a stile/wall?

Thanks for fixing this :)

Oh good. Thanks for checking!

Heya, this is a great load of house numbers to add, thanks for taking the time to survey!

I’ve just split up the one building which was accidentally a semi, at 37/38 Aspen Close (way/1413247767). I had to guess which way round the house numbers are, so if you can remember which way round they are and double check my edit (changeset/172130377) that would be great :)

Super, thanks! And thanks for the rest of your edits around Haweswater recently. It's nice to see some more detail being added to the place :)

Heya, please be mindful of osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions and consider using more specific tagging for Bowderthwaite Bridge and the sheepfold SW of it, rather than labelling them in their names.

e.g. A osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix for the bridge, and building=sheepfold or man_made=sheepfold for the sheepfold.

Ta :)

Reported where?

Deleting the name from a campsite won’t mark it as closed in OSM. Instead, you need to change name=blah to old_name=blah, and tourism=campsite to disused:tourism=campsite as per the osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix documentation. Thanks

I’ve changed the church access road to maxspeed=5mph in changeset/172003094 as per the above reasoning.

Thanks! :) That should reduce the chance of future confusion.

Perhaps also add tourism=attraction and sport=parachuting as per sport=parachuting?

Their website seems to position them as an attraction (anyone can book a skydive) rather than, say, a club (you have to become a member before you can skydive).

Thanks for the updates here! A quick note on deletions: where possible it’s better to keep an existing area, tweak its layout (including splitting or combining it if needed) and change its tagging to reflect its current use; rather than deleting it and creating a new area.

This keeps the editing history, so people can see the evolution of an area over time.

See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history :)

Resolved in changeset/171791746 I see, thanks for that