> If it was there, and then removed, as you state, than it was unkindly done (to say the very least) to remove it without informing me.

I would assume that lakedistrict was lacking in time, rather than being actively unkind. There has been quite a lot of vandalism or troubled edits in this area recently, and lakedistrict has spent a fair amount of time fixing it. A comment on your original changeset would have been appropriate, though.

> That there is no indication of it on the ground is a weak argument: the OSM database holds thousands of entries that cannot be referenced on the ground.

That there should be an indication of it on the ground is a core principle of OSM: data must be verifiable. A balloon launch site without any local signage indicating it as such is not verifiable. See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

As a local myself, I can attest that there’s no signage there that I can remember. It’s someone’s garden.

> If the location is incorrect, then it ought to be corrected, not removed. I much loathe the illustratred spirit of "this is not correct, away with it". So much more satisfying is "this leaves room for improvement, let's improve it." It is not by removing things that a complete database can be realised.

In this instance, we have the choice between leaving data which we *know* to be incorrect in the database, with no way of improving it (because nobody knows what’s more correct). Or removing it and allowing it to be re-added later if someone can verify a more accurate location.

> That said, I must plead guilty to not having any local knowledge available

Then please defer to the local mappers who *do* have local knowledge of this area.

There is no publicly open or signed balloon launch site here. If balloon launches do take place, they’re by prior private arrangement.

It’s been re-added without additional evidence in changeset/87282555. I’ve commented there.

Hi, you previously added this in changeset/87222049 and it was deleted by a local mapper in changeset/87223894 because there is no evidence of it on the ground. The node is currently mapped in the garden of a private house.

If you have local knowledge of where regular balloon flights take place from Gilpin Bridge, please give details. Otherwise this looks like an import of data from a random website, not informed by local knowledge and not backed up by on-the-ground evidence, and I think it would be best to delete the point again.

Cheers.

Hi. If you’re going to add the website to lots of nodes, could you consider ensuring you use the appropriate HTTPS link, rather than HTTP? http://bupa.co.uk redirects to https://bupa.co.uk, so it would be neater to use the HTTPS link in the first place on OSM.

I’ve fixed it in changeset changeset/87072791. I think the issue is that you did accidentally make some changes to the bridleway, marking it as access=private on the service road. I added access exceptions for pedestrians, horses and bikes. Thanks for your replies on this!

Hi, this edit doesn’t quite look right. What were you trying to achieve? Adding Italian names to buildings in Barrow doesn’t really make sense; and the unit number was already set for Bailey's cafe. I’ve reverted these changes in changeset/87014556. Thanks.

Which available resources in particular? Can you point me to the roadside imagery you used? Or the feedback from the driver?

I don’t know if you’re wrong for sure – I haven’t been down Hayclose Lane recently – but it seems pretty implausible for the bridleway to be inaccessible at one end.

Thanks.

Hi, are you sure about this change? This leaves the bridleway inaccessible from Hayclose Lane, which seems unlikely. Has it been rerouted? What’s your source?

Hi, welcome and thanks for your edits. Did you know that you can press the ‘Q’ button when a building is selected to automatically square its corners and hence to fit the satellite imagery better? Happy editing :)

This site is a nuclear power station. Please tag any new roads you add in it as access=private.

Hi, I’ve deleted this track in changeset changeset/85544686 because it’s just a temporary track for a new pipeline being built. I’ve added the full pipeline now, so it should be clear which tracks are temporary near it in future. Cheers.

Hi, thanks for your edits! Please consider using the ‘Q’ key in the ID editor to square up the corners of buildings. Just select the building and press ‘Q’. It makes the map neater and (generally, apart from old buildings) more correct. Ta :)

Nope, it's definitely a car parking area, not a highway. I have surveyed it. Can you please revert this?

Nice one!

It was found on a list of allotments in Kendal (https://www.kendaltowncouncil.gov.uk/sites/), all of the rest of which exist. Neither lakedistrict (who added it) or myself had local knowledge of exactly where it is, but it presumably does exist, and is worth leaving a fixme note in place for, so that someone can survey for it in future.

I can't survey it any time soon for obvious coronavirus reasons.

Hi, and thanks for your contributions! Are you aware that you can press ‘Q’ in the editor, when a building or area is selected, to automatically square up its corners? It makes drawing square buildings a lot easier.

Why? Does it not exist? Do you know where it does exist? Adding a comment to your changesets would help others to know what your reasoning for changes is. Thanks.

Why? There’s no give way from Lound Road to the east, and I don’t remember there being any road name signs to contradict the bridge being a continuation of Lound Road.

Hi, thanks for your edits. There’s no need to label these paths as being on the Dales Way, as they’re already in the Dales Way relation (relation/29302). I’ve removed the names in changeset/82392488 (but kept the surface tags you added, thanks).

Nice work!