Nice one :D
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120759810

Hi. If the path is faint, perhaps that could be indicated in the tagging by using trail_visibility=*? That might avoid other editors deleting the path in future because they can’t find it on the ground or don’t think its on-the-ground visibility warrants it being on the map. Just a suggestion :)

Hi, thanks for editing OpenStreetMap.

When editing buildings, you can use the ‘Q’ key to square up the corners automatically. This makes it a lot easier to draw regular rectangle shapes, which makes the map neater. Thanks!

Hiya, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Note that when editing buildings, it helps a lot to press the ‘Q’ key to auto-square their corners. This makes it a lot easier to draw (or resize) regular building shapes.

Thanks :)

Hiya. In future please consider updating the shop nodes which no longer exist, rather than deleting them. Deleting them loses the information that a shop exists there, and its address data (if set).

Disused shops can be tagged like this: disused:shop=*

Thanks for your edits :)

I would have thought that a Norwegian-localised renderer could fall back to using name= if name:no= was not set, but I’m not going to argue it!

Thanks for your edits :)

Hi, when making changes like this please consider splitting them into smaller, more localised changesets, and providing a summary of the changes which is specific to what you’ve actually changed.

This changeset spans Exmoor up to near Carlisle, which means that local mappers for those two areas have to verify changes they’re not familiar with.

In addition it changes the height and location of a mountain peak, and adds new megalith sites, neither of which count as “Correct[ing] tags on some stone circles”.

By splitting changesets up and providing relevant changeset comments (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments) you allow others in the community to easily see and verify changes to the map.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks!

This reverts changesets:
changeset/119885177
changeset/119886209

Hi, is it really that useful to add tags like name:no=Lancaster, where the name is not translated? That implies that the Norwegian translation of the city is ‘Lancaster’, but in reality I’m guessing there just isn’t a Norwegian translation.

Heya. When you’re editing around Ingleborough and the Dales, can you please make sure not to delete the bare_rock=limestone_pavement tagging on areas of limestone pavement?

They are fairly ecologically unique and are unlike other areas of bare rock, so it’s helpful to be able to differentiate them from more ‘ordinary’ bare rock (which also exists in the Dales).

Thanks!

Nice!

Would it make sense to remove the BBQ site entirely? Have the National Trust removed it physically?

Added in changeset/119374187, thanks for the photo!

Heya. When you were surveying here, did you spot the new ChargeMyStreet EV charging station which is supposed to be in the car park? See note/3105747. Apparently it’s been installed recently, but I’ve not been in the area to check yet.

If you are still in the area and have some time, surveying it would be really useful. If you’re not familiar with EV charging stations then please take some photos of the unit and its surroundings, and some closeups of the sockets, display panel and any nearby notices.

If you’re not in the area any more, or not bothered about surveying it, no worries :)

👍 thanks for your work on this!

Heya. If you can (if you’ve surveyed the data), it’s probably better to tag these with the power output of the station or individual sockets: amenity=charging_station#Power_output

That avoids using the name= tag as a description, and means the power data is machine readable for if someone wanted to render high-power charging stations differently in a map or something like that.

If the rails were still in place, each way would look like a railway so would need describing as such. But the cycle path is now fairly far removed from being a railway, so perhaps shouldn’t be described as looking like one. Just a suggestion.

Ta!

Heya. Should Red Hills Road be highway=unclassified, given that it’s covered in houses and is explicitly documented on the wiki as not to be used for residential streets? highway=unclassified

Is this necessary? The route is already recorded as an abandoned railway via a relation: relation/13285688