According to the wiki, building=residential is a general purpose tag which people should consider refining where possible (building=residential).

That said, were these originally built as semis and then all converted to flats, or were they originally built as flats? If they were originally built as semis, then I guess they should be building=house (with one area per semi), and building:use=apartments. Since building= is supposed to tag the original use of the building, rather than its current use.

Assuming they were originally built as flats, I’d go with building=apartments, building:levels=2 (or whatever it is) to indicate that they’re not tower blocks, and an addr:flats= key on each entrance, showing that they’re single entrances. Though I don’t know if you recorded that much detail in your survey!

🤷

Are these flats? If so, I guess building=apartments, plus building:flags= and addr:flats= might be more appropriate?

Hey, the location looks good to me (you can search OpenStreetMap using coordinates; just paste them into the search box). I’ve tweaked the tagging slightly in this changeset: changeset/67759817, since there’s an agreed tag for large, notable boulders.

Hey, why did you delete the highway=give_way at the junction? Have the road priorities changed? Thanks.

Wasn’t the extra bus stopping point for the westbound routes, and the remaining one for the eastbound routes? I thought the rule for tagging bus stops was to have one public_transport=stop_position per public_transport=platform.

That looks great, thanks for checking up on it and adding the barrier. lift_gate looks like an appropriate way of tagging it.

The reason I was asking is because the open data from Ordnance Survey calls the road The Sidings, but it does occasionally contain mistakes. I guess this is one of those times.

I’ve added not:name=The Sidings to make it clear that the new name is correct and has been checked, and also added a few other properties to the road in this changeset: changeset/67642702. Please let me know if you think any of those changes are wrong, as I’ve just based them on what was in your photo.

One last question: is there a way to get from the car park at the end of the road to the footpath heading north to Morecambe Road? If so it would be good to stick a footpath connection in there. Otherwise, the end node of the road should be tagged noexit=yes to make it clear it’s a dead end (for cars *and* pedestrians).

Thanks a lot! :-)

Thanks for contributing! I noticed this change and have a few questions.

OS Locator says the road is called The Sidings. Does it actually say Siding Close on the road sign? Is there another road nearby (or part of this road) which is called The Sidings?

What do you mean by ‘car barrier’? If there’s a gate accessible only by residents then it’s possible to map that separately.

Seems very unlikely. I’ve removed it in changeset/67098721.

Thanks. I’ve changed it to a retention pond for now (changeset/66962092), but it needs resurveying once the housing estate is complete. I was thinking it might be an infiltration pond since when I surveyed, it was dry. But that is probably because the estate isn’t finished yet.

Good suggestion. Tweaked on changeset/66745539, thanks. Thinking about coworking made me think about makerspaces, so I added that too. There’s another one in Lancaster/Morecambe which I’ll add shortly too. I’ll do the Kendal coworking offices soon too, unless you get there first.

It’s not majorly problematic; please do carry on adding this good stuff!

I didn’t notice you were doing the PRoW edits via MapThePaths itself; that explains everything. It would be good if the MapThePaths workflow could improve, but as you say, that could take time.

Thanks :-)

Hey, I don’t suppose you could combine some of these many tiny edits of paths/PRoW refs into a few, larger edits please? Having lots of tiny edits makes the map history harder to look through and makes reviewing edits harder.

Looks like a building in the satellite imagery. Has it changed?

Tweaked in changeset/66018892.

Actually, I think I was using the descriptions of the tracktype values from ID, which describes grade1 as “Solid: paved or heavily compacted hardcore” and grade2 as “Mostly Solid: gravel/rock with some soft material mixed in”.

I guess I didn’t read the tracktype documentation closely enough. grade2 might be slightly more appropriate than grade1, though it’s a really heavy duty grouse track now. You could cycle a road bike up it.

Heh, no worries. You can find documentation on most conventions on the wiki if you need it. Otherwise, just go out and edit things and don’t worry about everything being perfect.

There’s some tagging guidance for cycleways here: highway=cycleway. If you’re mapping based on local surveys (which is great!) then it’s probably most important to note what the official designation of each bit of path is (cycleway, bridleway, footpath, etc.) — the rest of the tagging can be tidied up from that afterwards.

Personally, I like to make sure to record whether a cycleway/path is lit (lit=yes or lit=no) and paved (surface=asphalt or surface=compacted or something else) too, since I find them quite relevant for cycling. But that’s icing on the cake.

Restricted byways are documented here: osm.wiki/UK_access_provisions#Restricted_byways.

It looks like someone’s edited the level crossing 9 months ago to mark it as access=no, which indicates nobody (bicycles, pedestrians, or vehicles) is allowed to use it. I think that’s appropriate tagging for what you describe. way/571093116

Interesting. I think that’s best handled by leaving the footpath in place, and marking that segment of it as a bridge, but then annotating it with a lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) to indicate it’s removed. I’ve done that here: changeset/65847563. Please edit it further if you think I’ve done something wrong there.

One question — what do you mean by ‘No_Bridge_Across_Railway’ at the end of Berners Close? How does the footpath get over the railway, or is there no legal way through at all? Ta.