I created note/3714103 so this can be resolved at any point in the future without risking being forgotten about.

I’ve made the fixes on your behalf in changeset/136735002

building=farm_auxiliary, farm_auxiliary=mushroom_farm would work as far as I’m concerned, and be more machine-readable than using the description= tag.

@jmarchon Do you have any better suggestions for how to tag these buildings, while retaining the information that they are specially designed and constructed for growing mushrooms?

Hi, please don’t change these, they are correct and more specific than farm_auxiliary. These are specialised buildings for growing mushrooms in.

Heya, thanks for your StreetComplete work around Galgate, it’s made the map a lot better!

I was just wondering whether way/838572591 is definitely number 8, or whether that’s a typo and it’s actually number 6?

Ta :)

Why have you added this footpath back again? Has something changed which means the discussion from changeset/135290950 is no longer valid?

If something has changed, you should explain it in your changeset comment. As it stands, this looks like an under the radar effort to revert the consensus for how this path should be tagged.

It looks like you reverted it successfully in changeset/136326948 :)

I’ve changed the tagging to disused:highway=footway in changeset/136354219 so I think this is all sorted now. Thanks very much for taking the time to improve the map!

The disused: prefix is documented here if you’re interested as well: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Cheers

Are you sure there’s nothing to give way to? There’s all the traffic on the A580, and I don’t think it’s going to be stopping for someone on a bike!

There might not be give way signs, but are there dashed lines painted where the cycleway meets the road? That indicates a give way too.

As you say, I think whether/how to display the label is a rendering question, not an issue with the dataset itself, although I see your point. The Lake District is very heavily labelled.

I can see your point about it being a collection of hills rather than an area. The tagging as natural=mountain_range doesn’t seem wrong to me, but I guess an alternative would be to add a relation containing all the relevant hill tops and label that instead. Perhaps a type=site relation would be appropriate?

If it does, I suggest reverting this changeset to restore the geometry, then re-editing it to change the tagging.

Changesets can be reverted using http://revert.osmz.ru/ (in case you haven‘t come across it before) :)

Heya, is it definitely this whole path which is closed off? The northern segment of it was marked as a public footpath, so it seems a bit odd (although definitely not impossible) that it would be closed for conservation reasons rather than being fixed/improved.

In any case, it’s quite possible that someone may come along and re-add the paths in future, from sources such as MapThePaths or Strava Heatmap. To avoid that happening, the recommendation* is to retag closed paths as disused:highway=footway rather than highway=footway, and add a note= explaining why the path is closed. That way, if someone comes to re-add the path in future they’ll see it’s already there and is explicitly closed.

* See osm.wiki/Talk:Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths#Closed_routes_(e.g._for_safety)

Does that fit in with what you surveyed on the ground?

Thanks!

I’ve reverted these changes (as changeset/136248127), since the area is definitely referred to as the Langdale Pikes, and there needs to be some way on OSM to reflect that.

If you have ideas for how to improve the tagging please go ahead, but I think the way needs to stay there to associate the name ‘Langdale Pikes’ with the area.

Cheers

Hi, can you perhaps go into a bit more detail about why this is a good change and why the previous mapping was incorrect?

If people now search OSM for “langdale pikes”, they won’t find this area, despite that being a commonly used name for it and it being a popular area to visit. That feels like a loss to OSM.

Thanks

Did you see the latest discussion from the National Trust and the OSM’s Data Working Group (DWG) on changeset/135290950?

The National Trust (via AWMapper) have said that path restoration has taken place for this path, and that they are looking into signage.

That does not stop you from walking along this path if you really want to, but it does make it pretty clear that the path should not be on a public map. Putting it on a public map effectively encourages people to use it.

Do you have any response to their points or the discussion as a whole?

This basically re-applies the changes to the path from changeset/135904623 after reverting it (in changeset/136122957) to restore the position of the trig point.

The trig point (node/7685964297) had a note saying its position had been calibrated for calculating imagery offsets, so moving it is probably going to break things.

See changeset/135290950 for other recent discussion and a note from the OSM’s Data Working Group (DWG) about this path.

I’ve marked the path as disused:highway=path in changeset/136122727 as suggested, thanks very much for the feedback and suggestion, SomeoneElse.

AWMapper, thanks for the update about works on the ground and plans for signage, that’s good to hear.

I don’t plan to make any further edits/reverts to this path. If the disused: lifecycle prefix gets removed from it again, I’ll leave resolution of that to the DWG.

Thanks all :)

Hi, thanks for spending time working on Keswick.

In future, if you are re-aligning geometry in the UK, can you please do so with reference to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels. The aerial imagery in the UK is not consistently aligned between imagery updates, and is not aligned to ground truth. Before aligning anything, you must adjust the imagery offset so it’s consistent with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels.

For the centre of Keswick, I think the imagery offset for Bing is currently -2.31,0.

See osm.wiki/Property_extents_in_the_United_Kingdom

Also, please provide more descriptive changeset comments than “edit … features”. *Every* edit in OSM is an edit of features, so saying that conveys no information at all. A more useful comment would be something like “Realign geometry in the centre of Keswick (Bing offset -2.31,0)”.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

A National Trust *employee* who has been working on a large project by them to update path details across their estate has updated it. To the best of my knowledge they are not a “wannabe”. They have made significant, detailed, and correct edits in other areas of the Lake District recently. I do not doubt their credentials.

The path update project (osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths) uses the National Trust’s existing database of path data, which I presume includes information about paths they’ve decided to close or discourage people from using for conservation reasons.

Advertising a path which is closed for conservation reasons is going to encourage people to use it, which is going to impact negatively on the conservation attempts. Presumably, closing a path on access land doesn’t always have to involve a “path closed” sign at the end of it, if the local NT employees judge that the trod isn’t sufficiently obvious to lure people onto it if it’s not on a map.