Hi! Could you please consider splitting your edits up into smaller geographical areas? For example, this edit could be one edit for Aberdeen, and one for Liverpool.

Large geographical edits mean that many people are notified of the change, even if it’s not relevant for them.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks :)

Perhaps you could have fixed the tagging on this rather than just deleting it? It’s a feature, and someone has gone to the effort of mapping it.

What was wrong with way/953757493?

Why delete the public_transport=stop_positions and RO-RO ramp number 7?

Thanks!

Heya, when converting nodes to areas can you please make sure to copy across *all* the tags from the node? Otherwise information about the access, fees, surface, etc. is lost :)

Reverted as changeset/133526828

Hi, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

Furness hospital is already mapped as way/588483640, so if it’s not showing up on the app you’re using, then you should get in touch with the authors of the app, as there’s likely a bug in the app.

There is not a problem with the map data in OpenStreetMap, as far as I can tell.

I’m going to remove your addition because the hospital is already mapped. Thanks

Thanks for your reply.

I’ve de-conflicted the changesets in changeset/133488416, so now the locker is tagged with just ref=cam and no osm.wiki/Tag:name=.

The wiki does say to tag using ref=cam rather than name=cam (and gives an explicit example for an Amazon locker): amenity=parcel_locker#Operating_options_/_Features

I suspect this is a refinement to the tagging guidelines since this locker was added. Changing the name=cam to ref=cam would have been much more preferable to just deleting name=cam and losing that data from the map entirely.

I’ve added the ref in changeset/133488327, although it looks like that just conflicted, so another edit will be necessary to choose between name= and osm.wiki/Tag:ref=.

Hi, what made that name vandalism? That’s probably the name of the drop-off locker, as printed on it.

The user who added the locker (lakedistrict) is a regular editor of OSM and is definitely not a vandal.

I’ve just fixed #1 in changeset/133449148, so that just leaves #3 unresolved.

Sources:
- https://www.geograph.org.uk/of/fleetwood+hospital
- https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/health/work-starts-to-transform-former-fleetwood-hospital-into-community-hub-1386230

Thank you for taking the time to do this!

Hi, thanks for all your edits in Ulverston recently!

Before you go too much further with adding and tweaking loads of things, you might want to double-check that the aerial imagery is properly aligned.

See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Align_aerial_imagery_before_tracing

From what I can tell, the offset needed for the Bing imagery in Ulverston at the moment is -3.4,-0.54. In other words, if you don’t align the imagery before starting editing, everything you draw will be 3.4m misaligned from reality in one direction, and 0.54m in the other. :)

The best way to consistently check the alignment against known ground truth is to enable the ‘OSMUK Cadastral Parcels’ overlay in the right-hand sidebar. It provides a consistent reference for alignment against property boundaries across the entire country.

I hope that makes sense, I realise it’s a little technical. I just wanted to catch you before you drew every building in Ulverston 3.5m off where they actually are!

Ta

Bing alignment offset: -3.4,-0.54

Great, thanks for clearing that up :)

It happens! But is way/1095049811 in Keswick a shed or a house?

Hiya, in this changeset did you mean to change way/1095049811 in Keswick to be a shed? In aerial imagery it looks a lot like a house (and it’s not at ARM)! Ta

Heya, I’ve just finished looking through this changeset. Thanks for putting it together! It should make the path network (and particularly bridleways) a lot more usable for people around Sawrey on OSM.

I’ve made a few tweaks in changeset/132922606 / https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=132922606, please take a look and let me know if anything doesn’t look right! Mostly it was just copying access tagging to footpath bridges.

A few questions:

1. way/467479309 is a parking aisle for a publicly accessible car park, but is tagged as motor_vehicle=no, and highway=bridleway rather than highway=service. Presumably that’s an oversight?

2. way/70697797 has been changed from highway=service to highway=path, but from aerial imagery it looks like a service road, and if it’s not, how do the owners of the houses along it drive home? I’m wondering if it should be highway=service, service=driveway, motor_vehicle=private, horse=private, bicycle=private.

3. Wondering about the change from surface=compacted to surface=gravel on way/309279965 (and other ways). Is the surface definitely loose gravel as opposed to compacted (macadam) gravel? In my experience almost all the maintained footpaths/tracks in the Lakes are compacted gravel, because otherwise it all washes away too fast. I might well be wrong in this case though, I haven’t checked this path in person! I just noticed surface=gravel being used a lot and wanted to double-check that it means what you think it means. See surface=*#Unpaved

4. way/223392551 is now tagged as highway=unclassified but motor_vehicle=no, is that right?

Cheers :)