Ah I see! Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for jumping to conclusions about your tagging. :)

I suggest using a lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) and a note to indicate the history of the path, then. This will avoid other mappers unknowingly adding it back in future, because the line of ground mats will hang around on aerial imagery for several years.

How about the following?

demolished:highway=path
foot=private
note=Line of temporary ground mats for work on Aira Force, removed once work was completed. Not a path and no right of access.

Cheers :)

Hiya, thanks for your contributions to OSM for the NT so far, it’s great to see the NT continuing to improve the map!

In this case, the highway tagging is correct and needed, so I’ve re-added it in changeset/175451682.

Features are mapped on OSM even if they’re private, with tagging like foot=private indicating that. (OSM maps what’s on the ground, not just what’s accessible to a certain group of people.) In this case access=private wasn’t correct, as that sets the default access for all transport types to ‘private’, which means that private car access was enabled for the path. foot=private is sufficient.

Thanks again for your edits! Happy to discuss this further if you have any questions :)

Ah, good point, I hadn’t realised that tag was deprecated now. Thanks.

Added oneway:bicycle=no and cycleway:left:oneway=-1, and changed cycleway:left from opposite_track to track in changeset/175448878

I think we’re in agreement that the sign applies at the transition point between the shared use section and the pavement.

If you really want to push forward an interpretation of bicycle=dismount tagging that means the way it’s on is necessarily part of a cycle route, you’ll need to get consensus amongst the community to change these wiki pages:

- osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#966
- bicycle=dismount

---

As a note, often putting words in CAPITALS when typing on the internet is interpreted as shouting, and shouting generally doesn’t help a discussion. A less shouty way of emphasising a word is to use *stars* or _underscores_ around it.

Hiya, thanks for the note. Sounds like you know more about the site than my guess from the aerial imagery, so please feel free to amend the tagging to be more appropriate. :) If a suitable tag isn’t already documented on the wiki (see things linked from man_made=wastewater_plant) then feel free to make up a new one (see osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like).

In any case, it might be worth keeping a link to https://waterprojectsonline.com/case-studies/kendal-wwtw-2019/ in a note on the reactor. :)

@JassKurn: Thanks for your detailed input. Would you be interested in modifying bicycle=dismount to add (or link to) a ’bicycle signage in the United Kingdom’ section which covers what you’ve said above?

The wiki page currently pretty clearly implies that bicycle=dismount is appropriate tagging for this sign in the UK, although it does not have a picture of this sign. Other people will draw the same conclusions as me about its relevance. It would be good to have guidance about this sign on the wiki so that not everyone who edits OSM has to read all UK highway law first. :)

---

@Pete I am happy to discuss my edits with you if you want to discuss them. There are various points and possible ways forward regarding this pavement tagging which I gave in my previous comment, but you have chosen to ignore those and talk about motorways instead. I am not going to talk about motorways.

If you continue to make ad-hominem insinuations against me, then I will happily refer you to the DWG again. As a reminder, last time they banned you, they asked you to apologise to me for calling my edits “vandalism”, and to provide sources for your edits in future. I have received no such apology, and I have not seen any sources for your edits since.

If you think I’m being unfair here, you are of course welcome to refer me to the DWG. But in any case, I think they would prefer us to come to an understanding ourselves. We are all here because we want to make a map which accurately and unambiguously reflects ground truth.

Hiya, when changing the alignment of geometry, please make sure to align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer first. The aerial imagery has an offset from reality (due to how it is photographed) and this varies from -2 to +2m in both dimensions from town to town, or even across a town. So the aerial imagery by itself cannot be used as an accurate source of ground truth for geometry alignment. The Cadastral Parcels can, as they come from accurate GPS measurements from the Land Registry.

I’ve re-aligned a few things in Windermere accordingly.

Any questions, just ask :) Thanks

Thanks for checking :)

Are you sure about the postcode change to the Old Sawmill cafe? The FHRS registration and the cafe’s Facebook page both say LA28DS, not LA28DU. The centroid for LA28DU is only on the building slightly further to the north, not the centre of the sawmill site.

Hiya, I’ve had to revert this changeset (as changeset/174427110) because you deleted part of the Roman road, and part of Inglewood Road too. (way/531471908)

The change you seemed to be intending to make – turning the footpath near QEGS into a cyclepath – seems unexpected to me too. Has this path recently been upgraded? It’s not shown as a current or planned cycle route on the LCWIP for Penrith (https://www.westmorlandandfurness.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/active-travel/local-cycling-and-walking-infrastructure-plans-lcwips#Penrith).

There are some weak traces for it on Strava Heatmap (https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?sport=RideLike&style=hybrid&terrain=false&labels=true&poi=true&cPhotos=true&gColor=blue&gOpacity=100#16.2/54.65709/-2.75596) but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal cycle route.

What’s your source? :)

> Nobody else interprets the tag in that way.

The wiki is the canonical source of how tags are interpreted. There are multiple consumers and renderers of OSM data. They need a place to document and agree on how tags are interpreted. That’s the wiki. If a renderer like cyclOSM is going to deviate from what the wiki says, they’d better have a good reason for it — and engage with people on the wiki and other renderers to improve the tagging schema so it’s unambiguous.

You’ve probably not seen anyone else interpret the tag that way because there are very few renderers which cater for cycling. My guess would be that most renderers basically ignore the bicycle= tag.

> Cycle routing algorithms include "dismount" sections - so it is important not to use this tag for places where cycling is prohibited.

I think this gets to the crux of this particular issue. Perhaps some additional tagging is needed to disambiguate between “this way is part of a cycle route but you have to dismount for a bit” and “this way is a footpath but connects to a cycle route so cyclists are reminded that now is the time to dismount”.

I think the distinction between highway=cycleway bicycle=dismount and highway=footway bicycle=dismount would be sufficient?

I don’t know why you’re talking about motorways, they’re obviously not relevant here.

I’ve reverted this as changeset/174327623

If it’s a newer mast which hasn’t appeared on imagery yet, please point to the RF survey! Thanks

I’ve reverted this as changeset/174327623 because it’s not visible on aerial imagery and duplicates the two masts next to it.

If it’s a newer mast which hasn’t appeared on imagery yet, please point to the RF survey! Thanks

Hiya, what do you mean by ‘clarity’ here? Has the snowsports club been redeveloped/refurbished since the current Bing aerial imagery was taken? Your edits remove detail from the pavilion/covered area at the bottom of the slope. The previous version of the map was more correct, at least if nothing’s changed since I last visited the slope.

If you let me know what you’re trying to achieve on the map here, I can help you achieve it :)

That’s grand, thanks for tidying this up :)

(Context is at note/5029359 for anyone reading this in future)

Good morning Pete.

The wiki documents that bicycle=dismount has exactly the same meaning as bicycle=no, so the tagging I used was correct. See bicycle=dismount

Given the equal choice between bicycle=dismount and bicycle=no for a bridge which is explicitly signposted as “cyclists dismount”, bicycle=dismount reflects the on the ground situation better. Both tags are correct though.

To reiterate: bicycle=dismount means cycling is not allowed on the pavement.

Why do you keep changing this?

There’s no mast visible on Bing aerial imagery here, and there also isn’t one listed on https://mastdatabase.co.uk/gb/sites/. What RF survey did you use?

Are you sure this isn’t a duplicate of the two masts already mapped either side of it?

Hi, I’ve undone these changes because they’re all over the place. Please split your changes into smaller, more self-contained ones; use more descriptive changeset descriptions (“improved clarity” is meaningless); and align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before starting editing.

If you have questions about any of that, please feel free to ask; the community is here to help :)

changeset/174057327

That’s great, thanks for updating them :D