Hiya, what was the reasoning behind this change? As far as I know, that road is just a driveway for The Villa, and is not a public road.

ta :)

Thanks. I’d actually go with landuse=farmland farmland=pasture rather than landuse=meadow meadow=pasture, since the former is the predominant tagging in the north west at the moment, and is being used by several active mappers. At some point your mapping is going to reach theirs, and there’s going to be a discontinuity.

Either tagging would be arguably correct, though, since there’s some wiggle room about it on the wiki. :)

Hi, can you please not retag landuse=farmland, farmland=pasture as landuse=meadow without adding further qualifiers about the kind of meadow (as the farmland=pasture tag was used)?

Very, very few fields in northern England are actual meadows, so I believe use of landuse=meadow is misleading. Almost all of them, used for sheep and cattle grazing, are pasture.

Meadows have longer grass and wildflowers and are cut for hay rather than being close-cropped grazed for most or all of the year.

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this area of the map. I added the residential area for the static caravan site on the basis of your comments in your previous edit. Was that not correct? I kept the area separate from the Caravan Club site.

Static caravan parks are meant to be tagged as landuse=residential residential=trailer_park.

Perhaps mapping the hedge/fence between them would make it clearer that they are separate?

Note also that it can take a few hours for the rendered map to update after you’ve made an edit, which may be confusing matters slightly.

Hi, what’s your reasoning for deleting the bus stopping locations? They are used to let routing engines know where on the road the bus stops, and aiui should be used in addition to mapping the bus stop platforms.

Out of interest, why have you changed the shelter from an area to a node? That looks like it’s removing information from the map.

Reverted as changeset/122611182

Half of these are duplicates of existing nodes. A lot of them are tourism=attraction nodes which are naming a footpath which is already mapped.

This is not the right way to contribute to OpenStreetMap. As Nickolas has said, changes should be made in small local edits, and you should not submit duplicate attractions.

I’m going to revert this changeset as fixing it would be asking too much of many people’s time.

I tweaked it in changeset/122578062 — please say (or edit it) if what I’ve done looks wrong.

The crux of the change is to make sure the alley way has a node which is tagged as the barrier, otherwise routing engines won’t know about it.

You can see more about cycle barrier tagging here: barrier=cycle_barrier :)

Hi, please do not use OS maps as a source of information to use on OpenStreetMap. The license is not compatible, and could expose OSM to legal action or licensing fees from Ordnance Survey.

See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence

Other sources of information are available about public footpaths, such as https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/ (although the permissibility of using information from there varies between counties), or the ‘Public rights of way’ overlay in the ID editor. Many counties do allow their footpath data to be used from there.

I’ve checked in MapThePaths that this footpath exists and follows this route.

I see. As far as I can tell, the rule of using areas for stations in the UK is not documented on the wiki. railway=station says that a node or area is allowed, and there’s no mention of UK-specific rules.

You might want to document that rule and link to it in changeset messages when enforcing it in future. :)

Why?

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your recent edits to add more detail at Lancaster Castle!

There are a few other mappers local in the area, so if you have any questions just get in touch with one of us and we can lend a hand.

It would be great to see some more detail added to the area around the Castle, particularly in terms of the Priory, Vicarage and Mitre House. So if you know those areas well, please feel free to add more detail there :)

Thanks so much for doing this, I realise it was probably quite a lot of tedious effort! It’ll provide a good basis for the map going forward :)

That said, thank you for adding all this stuff to the map. It’s good to see it getting fleshed out well!

Please use the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels for alignment! The alignment around this area of Morecambe/Lancaster is 2.41,0.

So unfortunately all the stuff you’ve added in White Lund here is 2.41m off reality. :(

I’ve reverted this change as changeset/121595585, and made a further change as changeset/121595616 to ensure the road is reachable — I assume this was causing the warning you were originally trying to fix.

You can use http://revert.osmz.ru/ to revert any changeset — just input the changeset number and a message listing the changeset number and why it’s being reverted.

Once it’s reverted (the tool normally takes a couple of minutes), it sounds like that byway will need a barrier node adding just south of the give way. You’ll probably want to tag it with:
barrier=bollard
motor_vehicle=no
bicycle=yes
foot=yes

or something like that, depending on whether it’s actually a bollard or some other kind of barrier :)

Heya. Are you sure about this one? The satellite imagery shows dashed white lines at the end of the service roads, which are legally equivalent to a ‘give way’ signpost.

The main reason for putting give way nodes into OSM is because they allow routing software to know where the priority is at each road junction. This allows for correct “turn left in 100m” style navigation announcements.