Hi again, last changeset I’m going to message on! You’ve dived in a bit at the deep end with some of your changes in Cockermouth, in terms of the subtleties of correct tagging of data, hence the messages.

What was the prompt for changing the primary/secondary/tertiary nature of some of these roads?

The standard tagging in the UK is to use highway=trunk for A-roads with green signs, highway=primary for A-roads with black/white signs, highway=secondary for B-roads and highway=tertiary for C-roads and major streets in towns.

You can find the guidelines here (scroll down the table to the UK entry): osm.wiki/Highway:International_equivalence

Some of these changes don’t match those guidelines. Have the road classifications changed in Cockermouth, or were you trying to affect traffic routing around town based on local knowledge about where people normally drive, or something like that?

Sorry for all the questions. With road tagging – particularly major road tagging – it’s important to get the tagging right, as the data in OpenStreetMap is used by a number of vendors for things like delivery routing, satnav directions, town planning, etc. It’s not just used to create the map image you see on openstreetmap.org!

Thanks, that makes sense. I’ve added the motor_vehicle=destination tagging in changeset/129283070, to correspond to the signage.

That tagging indicates that the road is open to residents, but not open to through traffic, which sounds correct from your description.

Cheers

Hi again, a quick question about this edit: is Rubbybanks Road open to through traffic? Hopefully you know the answer, since you seem to be local. If not, no worries :)

From satellite imagery (I’m not local to Cockermouth) it looks like it’s too small and should probably only be open to destination traffic. If so, it should be tagged as motor_vehicle=destination. Otherwise satnavs might try and route cars from South Street to New Road along it.

The signs indicating this kind of access restriction are https://startsafety.uk/image/catalog/product-photos/signs/post-mount/supplementary/xsupplementary-sign-except-for-access-inline.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gLJ8jk0Yrx.webp

Thanks!

Thanks for your fast reply!

In that case, I’ve re-added the path, but marked it as destroyed, in changeset/129281766. Re-adding the line of the path will prevent others from erroneously re-adding it in future from the footpath data.

Happy editing :)

Hiya, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

You’ve changed way/527563341 so it goes down to the beach, but the public footpath data from the council shows it as going to the middle of Simonscales Wood. Is there no footpath on the ground which goes to Simonscales Wood?

You can see the council footpath data by selecting the ‘Public Rights of Way’ overlay in the ‘Background Settings’ panel on the right in the editor.

Thanks!

> You physically couldn't drive a 4x4 down it due to the overgrowth on the sides which I suppose is the metric I've normally gone for.

That makes sense to me! Thanks for taking the time to explain it all.

I know the top end of Heald Lane, which I think qualifies as a track, and that’s why I was wondering about this edit — but I haven’t actually been down Heald Lane (or the others) before and you have!

Cheers :)

Heya. What was the reasoning behind changing way/71189144 and way/158237527 to highway=bridleway from highway=track? :)

As I remember it, these are physically tracks on the ground, even if motorised access is private. imo highway=bridleway is never really appropriate because it doesn’t describe what’s physically on the ground, only its legal status, and that’s already given by designation=public_bridleway and foot=designated horse=designated.

I’d be interested to learn about your interpretation of the tags. Hope you had a good walk :)

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap :)

This changeset covers quite a large area (Bristol to Bamburgh), which is discouraged (see osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets). I’m guessing it’s probably accidental, but please watch out for that in future.

The changeset comment also isn’t very informative. Informative changeset comments are useful for others to see why certain changes have been made (see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments).

For example, the changes near Bamburgh are fairly self-explanatory as they match satellite imagery. But the deletion of the Greta Thunberg mural in Bristol (node/7388360914) is unclear. Did you delete it because it’s been painted over? Or was the deletion accidental?

Adding information like that to changeset comments can help others check that edits aren’t spam or vandalism.

Thanks, and happy editing :)

Hiya. Sorry to pester, but the changes to tagging of at least one crossing in this changeset seem to be at odds with the current recommendations in the wiki.

node/7660663948 was changed from crossing=marked, crossing_ref=toucan to crossing=toucan, crossing_ref=toucan.

crossing=toucan is part of the ad-hoc UK-centric tagging for road crossings, but is not what’s (for example) supported by ID. The consensus since 2018 has been crossing=marked, crossing:signals=yes and optionally crossing_ref=toucan to clarify things for the UK.

See osm.wiki/Crossings#Street_crossings

Just bringing this up because you’re changing a lot of bicycle/crossing tagging, and it would be a shame to consistently use non-consensus tagging on them.

Ta :)

OK, thanks for fixing it!

For anyone else coming across this in future, it was fixed as changeset/128437212

Was moving the LA12 postcode centroid intentional? (node/314716450)

No problem, thanks for taking the time to improve the map!

If you want to make further improvements here, like adding house names and numbers to the area, that would help the area a lot. But I understand if you want to limit your changes to sorting out the track issues near you!

Thanks for your detailed reply!

I’ve split the track at what is hopefully the right place in changeset/128286779. If you need to in future, to split things, you select the track, shift-select the node you want to split it at, then press ‘X’.

Is the southern half of the track regularly physically passable by vehicles, e.g. private ones with landowner permission? If so, the current tagging on it (access=private) is correct.

Otherwise, if the southern half is not physically passable by vehicles then it should be retagged as a footpath, as you did before.

As far as I can see, the access tagging is already correct for the whole length of the track. It’s already tagged as access=private, which means that satnavs should not route people along it. If a satnav is doing that, it’s interpreting the data incorrectly and the manufacturer should be informed. As far as I can see, the data is correct.

Changing the southern half to be a footpath would probably stop satnavs routing along it, but it’s only a change we should make if the route is physically a path rather than a track. Otherwise someone will inadvertently change it back to being marked as a track when it’s next resurveyed in future.

Hiya, are you sure this is a footpath along its whole length? Your change indicates there’s no vehicle access to way/500285784. I guess that’s possible, but it seems unlikely? Thanks

I think there is a cycle path along the canal at least all the way from Lancaster to Carnforth, no?

The section through Bolton-le-Sands is on NCN 6 and NCN 700, and is shown on the council’s cycling map as an off-road cycling route: https://www.visitlancashire.com/dbimgs/LancasterMorecambeCycleMap.pdf

What makes you say there’s no cycle path at that point? Have I misinterpreted something? Ta

Super, thanks for sorting that out. :)

For anyone else stumbling on this in future, the path was re-added in changeset/128081298

Happy editing :)

Hiya, thanks for your edits around Carlisle. What was your reasoning for deleting the footpath along the bank of the Eden? (way/788815341)

If you turn on the Public Rights of Way overlay (in the Background Settings pane), there is a right of way along that bank of the river.

No worries. Note that you can get the MapThePaths overlays directly in the ID editor by enabling ‘Public Rights of Way’ in the ‘Background Settings’ pane, if that helps.

It’s good to have hobbies! Happy mapping :)

Perhaps a topic for a new tagging proposal? The tagging for lime kilns does seem quite fragmented already, and they’re quite a common historical site to come across.

I’ve retagged them as building=mushroom_farm and added the farmyard areas, in changeset/127993636.

They’re not quonset huts, as they’re not military buildings, don’t have windows, and are made of fabric and insulation over a frame, rather sheet metal.

Here’s a geograph photo of the actual buildings: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2649603