Hiya, the Bay Cycleway is already mapped as going along Lindale Road here.

You can see the current route relation here: relation/7024538#map=15/54.1906/-2.9002

Is the Promenade an optional loop on the route, or has the route been completely diverted?

If it’s an optional loop then I guess the railway crossings at Blawith Point and the Memorial Playing Fields should also be added to the route, to join the loop up? Is that what’s present on the ground?

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for replying. How are you determining the correct position? Based on the Bing satellite imagery in the editor, or by a settled GPS reading off the trig point?

Hi, what sources are you using to determine the ‘correct’ position of the summit and trig point?

This is the 4th time in a row you’ve ‘corrected’ the position of the trig point/summit. Which position is actually correct?

Hi, I don’t know if you saw my message on changeset/131418312.

Are you sure these are really cycleways? Apart from some short areas approaching/leaving the roundabout at Newby Bridge, and an off-road lane (the pavement) near Lowick Green, I don’t think there is any cycle infrastructure on the A590/A5092/A595.

Has there been a huge amount of roadworks recently?

Fixed in changeset/131426074, thanks!

Hi, are you sure that motor_vehicle=private is correct for way/23910293? As I understand it (I haven’t visited for a few months) that’s the only access road for the caravan site.

If that’s correct, should it be motor_vehicle=customers instead?

Hiya, are you sure about access=no on way/608945404? That means nobody can access the track, not even the owner.

Hi, are you sure this is correct? This adds a load of cycleways to the A590 which I don’t believe exist — at least last time I went along the A590, the area just off the solid white line of the carriageway is a (narrow) hard shoulder, not a cycleway.

Has a cycleway been added in the last month or two?

Thanks

Hi, how did you measure the position of the summit? Is this edit just based on looking at the default satellite imagery, or is it based on GPS measurements?

Satellite imagery can be (and is) misaligned in places and can’t be relied on for accurate positioning of things to nearer than about 2m.

See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Align_aerial_imagery_before_tracing

I think I’ve sorted things out correctly in changeset/131328751 so that the stile is marked, and the footpath joins into the path further east.

Please tweak my edit or say if anything looks wrong!

Hi! Note that when adding buildings, there’s a handy tool for squaring up their corners easily: select the building and press ‘Q’. Helps to keep things regular :)

Hiya, thanks for your edits around Milnthorpe!

These paths look fine to add. Are they actually private, or is there a presumed right of access because they are the access to a group of houses’ front doors?

Paths in OSM can be suitable for pedestrian use without being a designated Public Footpath — just tag them as foot=yes (rather than foot=designated).

foot=private is best reserved for a path which is entirely on someone’s private land (such as the path to their front door, or a path in a large private garden). Typically that kind of thing isn’t mapped, but sometimes they’re so obvious on the ground that mapping them makes sense.

Which situation do you think applies best here?

Thanks!

For anyone else following along, the fixes have been made as changeset/131136096

For anyone who looks at this in future, it’s a fixup to some minor issues in changeset/131113820

Hi, thanks for this and, more generally, for the work the NT is doing on OSM :)

Two things I noticed while checking this over:

1. way/150945859 is tagged as designation=public_footpath, but foot=permissive. That seems slightly contradictory — should it be foot=designated for a designated PRoW? It appears on MapThePaths as PRoW ‘1-30 2’.

2. way/28732076 has been changed to a track. Should it have access=private to indicate that vehicle access is private, or is it a public right of way for vehicles too? I’m not familiar with the track myself so can’t just dive in and tweak it. :)

Thanks!

Super, thanks for the fast response, and thanks to you and the National Trust for doing this initiative :)

Hiya, thanks for these changes!

There are a few ways in the changeset (e.g. way/121597338) where designation=public_footpath has been changed to designation=public_path.

I don’t think designation=public_path is valid — it’s not listed on designation=* or osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths.

Was that intentional, or an accident?

Cheers!

Hi, thanks for your reply.

There is a real path, I’ve been up it, Wainwright has been up it, and a reasonable number of people on Strava have been up it (https://www.strava.com/heatmap#15.84/-3.21492/54.62813/hot/run). It’s not a path which is suitable for everyone, but it is definitely a real path, mentioned in real guidebooks and used by people.

It is marked on OSM as a path which requires “Exposed and demanding terrain. May include steep rock scrambles” (see sac_scale=*). That seems appropriate to me.

It is not the fault of the data in OSM if certain renderings of that data do not appropriately take the sac_scale tag into account.

osm-carto (what you see on this website) has problems with that, which need to be fixed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1500

AllTrails and potentially other walking apps also have similar issues.

But all of those issues are not problems with the underlying data in OSM.

If the path were to be deleted from OSM, it would likely just be re-added in future by someone else who has used it (probably someone who wonders why one of Wainwright’s routes is not in OSM), and the whole problem would start again.

I hope that helps explain my reasoning.

Hi, I have reverted this change because the path does exist (it’s described in Wainwright’s guidebooks), and it was tagged correctly as sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking.

The fact that AllTrails does not correctly highlight the sac_scale difficulty of the path is a problem with AllTrails, not OpenStreetMap.

Heya. Thanks for the speedy reply.

I’ve just used http://revert.osmz.ru/ to revert your changes in their entirety, and have manually re-applied the changes to the path and landuse areas.

Hopefully I didn’t miss anything! Please dive in and tweak things if I have messed up.

The changesets I’ve done are:
- changeset/130964659
- changeset/130964743

If you live locally, and want to easily map the house numbers and other detail on the estate, you might want to look at the StreetComplete app (https://streetcomplete.app/) which makes that pretty easy. I’m the other end of the county and have done my edits from aerial imagery and memory from visits, so unfortunately can’t add detail like that. :)