Great, thanks! :D

Hiya, please don’t make edits which span such a large geographical area, as it makes it hard for others to review them.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

This should probably have been one edit per county or per airport, and with a more descriptive changeset message than “additions and fixes”, as that’s meaningless. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Are these IATA codes you’ve added actually valid? I’ve searched for a few of them and they don’t show up on the IATA website (e.g. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=QKC)

Hiya, if you want to tag the flat numbers, see addr:flats=*

Hiya, did you align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before making this edit? I think you’ve broken the alignment I spent a while making accurate in changeset changeset/174076320.

I believe the offset of the Bing imagery relative to ground truth (Cadastral Parcels) in this area is about -1.84,-0.97 metres.

Hiya. Thanks for trying to improve the map. I’ve had to revert this changeset (and your following one which deleted the bridleway) as the bridleway does exist as a right of way, and hence should be on the map.

The reversion is here: changeset/176137143

You can see the right of way using the ‘Public Rights of Way’ overlay in the ID editor, or on the council’s definitive map here: https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/

The legal right of way needs to be mapped. We have precious few legal access rights to the countryside as it is, especially around the Lune, so allowing some to be lost is not good for public access to the countryside.

I realise the ford is only usable in very low water, but this should be mapped by adding additional tags to the bridleway to describe its physical state. It’s already mapped as smoothness=impassable and horse_scale=dangerous for that reason. If you know of more physical tags which would be appropriate (see the wiki: osm.wiki/) please add them. :)

Finally, with a few exceptions (which are available in the ID editor), OS maps are *not* a permissible source for information for OpenStreetMap, as their licensing is incompatible with OSM’s. Please do not use them for edits. See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence

I realise this is a lot to take in. Unfortunately, UK public rights of way law is complicated, and OSM necessarily has to reflect that.

Happy to answer any questions you might have :)

I am well aware of those guidelines thank you.

Better that stuff is mapped from out of date imagery than not mapped at all. :)

Thanks for removing them (changeset/175994064), although in future it might be better to change them to use the removed:* lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay), or changing the tagging to tree stump (natural=tree_stump), to avoid someone accidentally re-adding them from outdated aerial imagery in future. Ta :)

Heya, thanks for your edits around Troutbeck recently. Are you aware of osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse ?

Oops, thanks!

I’ve changed it to man_made=pontoon in changeset/175799940

Fixed in changeset/175799833

You’re right, it’s a typo. Thanks for spotting it and letting me know! Fixed in changeset/175760386 :)

It’s neither a pier nor a quay, but man_made=pontoon would be appropriate, I think.

Hiya, I see what you’re trying to do here, but I don’t think a pontoon can be described as a building. It doesn’t have walls or a roof.

I think the waterway=pontoon tagging is as valid as waterway=dam.

My suggestion is that either some other tagging needs to be found which describes a pontoon as a structure which is inherently present only on water, or waterwaymap.org needs to be updated to not flag waterway=pontoon for loop errors.

Thanks, adding a note or a fixme would also work. :)

Hiya. If a POI’s website doesn’t resolve any more, that’s a really good hint that the business has closed/changed. Rather than removing the broken link, please take the time to work out what’s changed and update all the details instead — that’s a lot more useful for the map. Otherwise you’re just removing the (often) only sign that a POI is out of date, making it harder for others to spot that it needs updating. Thanks.

I’ve reverted this change (as changeset/175634900) as above. Happy to chat if you think the reasoning above is incorrect :)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892400/Variation_Notice_BM4252IJ-V003.pdf confirms that these generators are permitted for <500 hours of operation per year, in emergency situations. They’re diesel fuelled.

I don’t think it warrants being mapped as a power plant. It’s just part of the components of the nuclear power plant.

Heya, what’s the reasoning for adding this? As I understand it, the gas turbines at Heysham 1 & 2 are for internal use for running the Heysham plant in case of a trip or grid disconnection; they don’t export energy to the grid. They’re also gas fuelled, not oil fuelled, I believe?

Great. I’ve made the changes in changeset/175498881

No worries, one of the great things about OSM is that things can always be changed again to improve them. If you could leave a bit more contextual info in your changeset descriptions, that would help avoid misunderstandings in future, but that’s a very minor suggestion from me. Thanks again for your work on the map :)