The PTv2 documentation for public_transport=station says that stations should be mapped as areas unless the outline is not known (public_transport=station).

I don’t disagree with you, but I think there is a reduction of information by tagging the station outline as a railway corridor rather than something more specific.

In any case, would you consider updating the wiki? Having the wiki document one thing while people are actively changing away from that is going to lead to confusion and duplicated work as people continue to map to the old schema.

I am local. Platforms 1 and 2 are operational; platform 6 (the eastmost platform, which is already tagged as disused) is not.service=*#Railways seems to suggest that service=siding is correct for those tracks, but I don’t really know (or care!). If you’re sure the tagging is wrong please do change it. :-)

The station/cafe building is a private business now, and has different opening times from the train station. The north-west end of the platforms are fenced off and seem to belong to the cafe (although it wasn’t open when I was there).

Unless I have misunderstood, changing Lancaster from an area to a node is not what the tagging wiki says for railway stations (railway=station#A_Simple_Railway_Station). What's the goal here?

That makes sense. Looking into it more closely, it seems the OSL dataset was withdrawn in 2015, so the OSLMC tool is never going to be useful again until it’s updated to use the replacement OS Open Names dataset, and that’s too much of a change for me to tackle. :(

osm.wiki/OS_Locator#Discontinued

Hi, these changes have upset the OSL Musical Chairs tool, which now thinks that Red Pike Close and High Style Close don’t exist on OSM (but do exist in the OSL list). Is there anything which can be done about this to rectify the false positive in the tool? Thanks.

Heya, do you think there could be a more specific tagging scheme for peat huts? How about historic=yes, building=industrial (or ruined:building=industrial), man_made=peat_hut? Or historic=yes, description=Peat hut, rather than name=Peat hut? That would allow the data to be more machine-readable, and is just a suggested starting point; other suggestions welcome. Merry Christmas :)

I fixed it in changeset changeset/78723311. Please discuss it there if you think anything’s wrong. Thanks.

Hi, thanks for your edits. Note that in order for renderers and routing engines to understand stiles (and gates, etc.), the node which represents the stile had to be joined to the footpath it’s on (and the wall/hedge it crosses, if that’s also present in OpenStreetMap). The node can’t be next to the footpath.

I’ve fixed it all in changeset/78692181. Hope that makes sense :)

Hi. Why have you removed the social facility tags from the Hawthorns? I don’t believe it’s changed recently. Thanks.

(Fixed in changeset/77701644)

Why have you added a recycling point within the wastewater treatment works? It’s not accessible to the public. Is there actually a recycling point there? The website you attached to it doesn’t mention anything to do with recycling.

There’s a stile marked at the eastern end of the path, so maybe it’s an older path (on access land?) which has fallen into disuse? If so, your suggestion of restoring highway=footpath and setting the surface and tracktype appropriately seems reasonable to me. However, I’m not an expert, and perhaps it’s worth bringing this up on the mailing list if you have time.

I’ve had a brief read of that wiki page, and it all looks very exciting. I don’t have any feedback other than that I think it’s great the NT are doing this, and thank you for your work on it. Hopefully it’s a fruitful and long relationship. :-)

Thanks for these updates! Is way/518749729 supposed to no longer be highway=path?

Oops, thanks!

Actually, I think there should be no foot=* tagging. foot=designated is implied by highway=bridleway and designation=public_bridleway. All bridleways are footpaths in the UK (but not all bridleways are necessarily cycleways).

Hi, there should be no need to explicitly tag foot=permissive here, because highway=bridleway implies foot=yes. See the wiki: highway=bridleway#England_and_Wales:_Public_bridleways.

What routing software are you using? It should take this implied tagging into account — if not, I think that’s a problem with the routing software.

Also, I think foot=permissive is slightly wrong in any case, because this path is designated, not permissive. i.e. The landowner doesn’t have the right to close it.

Let me know what you think :)

OK, another comment arising from your changeset: changeset/75864810. Are the names that you’re adding actually the names used to refer to these bowling greens on the ground, i.e. in signage?

Unless they’ve changed their signage recently, Carnforth’s bowling club is referred to as “Carnforth Bowling Club” everywhere, not as the (mouthful) “Carnforth/Cross Keys Hotel Crown Green Bowls Club” (way/367216276).

As per osm.wiki/Names, the name tagged in OSM should be the name as seen on the ground. Maybe the tag official_name= would be more appropriate for the names you’re adding?

Hi, I think there’s some improvements you could make to how you are tagging bowling greens. Firstly, instead of prefixing the name of the green with “MAYBE DISUSED”, you can use `fixme=Maybe disused?` as a separate tag, which avoids polluting the map with meta-comments, and means people can mechanically search for fixme= tags to survey in person.

Secondly, instead of adding the name of the bowls club to each pitch, you could add a new club=sport area around the pitches (covering the area of the club’s grounds). This would align better with OSM’s rule about “one feature, one element” (osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element). If you don’t know the area of the club’s grounds, you could add the bowling greens to a relation and put the club tags on the relation.

I’ve made those changes for Lancaster in this changeset: changeset/75880234

I hope that makes sense; happy to clarify or discuss things if not. Thanks for your contributions!

Sure, it’s on the list. That’s why the note was still open.

Sorry, I don’t mean to be negative or discouraging, but I don’t think the note can be closed without actually surveying the charging point in person. :-)

Did you actually survey this in person? If not, I think it’s better to leave the note open to remind someone to survey the charging station in person. Charging stations can be in all sorts of states (advertised but not installed, permanently broken, installed in a different location from what you think) which can’t be known unless someone physically visits them.