Also, the access tagging changes here will likely cause regressions in cycle routing as per the earlier discussion comments on changeset/93427676.

access=designated;discouraged should cover the legal access rights for the path, while not actively causing routers to suggest cyclists should actually ever cycle across the sea/sand.

Hi. foot=designated implies foot=yes, so you shouldn’t need to change those tags.

If your navigation software doesn’t understand foot=designated then it needs to be fixed/updated.

I didn’t add the detail of the Lisdoonie to the Co-op. I added new detail to the Co-op.

If something about how I’ve mapped the Co-op is wrong, please feel free to go ahead and fix it (but please note the imagery alignment needed for this part of Barrow) :)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the process.

I’m still fairly sure this is a violation of the licensing terms of the DoBIH. Certainly in spirit, even if the details of the copying process could be argued. Essentially, the DoBIH authors have spent a *lot* of time measuring hill summit locations, and they should get attribution and credit for that work. Building on their work in OSM by moving the hill summits in OSM to closely align with the measurements done by the DoBIH authors is deserving of that attribution.

I realise this is something you’ve done with the best of intentions, and it’s taken many hours. I absolutely agree that it would be great to have all the summits in the Lakes accurately positioned for everyone to use. But I think that needs to be done with due regard for the work put in by the DoBIH authors, as requested by the license they have put on their data.

I’m going to talk to the OSM Data Working Group (DWG) to get a second opinion on how’s best to move forwards here.

Can you clarify a few things so I can make sure I’m understanding things properly? :)

1) Which OS maps are you using?
2) How are you referencing the DoBIH data? Are you overlaying OSM onto it and moving the summits so they align with something? Are you looking at the latitude/longitude directly? I’m not really clear how your process works.

Thanks

You've made over 100 edits which copy the data from DoBIH into OSM. Their copyright page states that use of the DoBIH data needs to clearly give attribution to DoBIH where the data is used. OpenStreetMap cannot do that — all it has is “© OpenStreetMap contributors” as a link in the bottom. It would need something like “© OpenStreetMap contributors and The Database of British and Irish Hills v18” to comply with their attribution requirements.

Accordingly, as I understand things, DoBIH data therefore cannot be used in OSM without a waiver which says they’re happy to waive the attribution requirement.

Given how popular and useful OSM is, I imagine the DoBIH people might be amenable to providing a waiver. Have you spoken to them about it?

If you think my interpretation of the licensing is incorrect, you could raise the question on the imports mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports).

Ta :)

Hiya. Are you sure that the licensing terms for the DoBIH data are compatible with those of OpenStreetMap?

DoBIH data is licensed CC-BY-4.0 (see http://www.hills-database.co.uk/downloads.html#copyright). According to osm.wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility, this license is incompatible for import into OSM unless a waiver is provided which waives attribution and allows redistribution.

Do you know if such a waiver exists? Is this import of hill locations something which has gone through the import guidelines (osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines)? I couldn’t find any documentation about this import of DoBIH data on the wiki.

Sorry to question you on this, but ensuring license compatibility is important in order to ensure that OSM data can continue to be used under *its* license terms by everyone. It’s boring legal stuff, but it is important to get right on scales like this in order to allow the project to continue. Ta

Heya, not sure how this has happened, but both of these things are already mapped. So I’ve undone these changes (as changeset/139429005). Ta

Hi, thanks for all the updates to bus routes recently. Can you please not mix them in with other changes though? Doing so makes it hard for you to explain the reasoning for all your changes in the changeset comment, and hence makes the changes quite hard for others to review.

In this changeset, you’ve deleted relation/9374763 and relation/7497954 without explanation. Why?

You’ve also deleted the bus route 33 (relation/8143377), but as far as I know that route does still exist. Why?

Thanks in advance :)

I’ve reverted this changeset. Almost all the branch= tagging changes are incorrect, and you’ve dragged a bus stop node to the wrong place. As lakedistrict says, if you’re going to do automated tag updates, you need to make sure they are absolutely perfect. Just clicking ‘update tags’ everywhere is a waste of everyone’s time.

Reverted as changeset/139196304

Do not make automated edits like this.

I just had to check through almost 200 changed nodes/ways in this changeset to find that you'd completely changed the tagging of the Oxfam bookshop. (Fixed in changeset/139195876.)

That doesn't scale, and it isn't fair on others for you to spend a short amount of time clicking “automatically fix tagging” on a load of things, thereby forcing them to check through every single change to see if it is actually valid.

If applying those automated edits were foolproof, it would have been done automatically already.

I believe edits like this fall under the automated edits guidelines, and hence basically should never be done: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Hiya, thanks for this improvement to the map.

Just one point: access=no means that it’s physically impossible to use the track, even if you are the owner or have permission. What you probably mean is access=private. I’ve edited it accordingly!

See access=*#Introductory_examples for documentation about the access key. :)

Heya. The previous permissions tagging was put in place by the National Trust as part of a big audit they’re doing of rights of way in OSM.

As I understand it, foot=permissive (as it was tagged) does mean that foot access is allowed on the route.

Is the legal situation here a public footpath, or a public permissive footpath? The previous tagging indicated it was a permissive footpath. Did the NT get that wrong?

Just want to check to make sure, since both MBP and NT are authorities on this kind of thing locally. :)

No worries, thanks for being responsive to feedback! The UK rights of way tagging scheme in OSM is particularly complicated to get your head around. Unfortunately it has to be that way because PRoW law is so complex!

For anyone else reading this later on, this change was reverted as changeset/138923835

For anyone who comes across this later, after discussion on a related changeset (changeset/138843587), this change was reverted in changeset/138923803

Thanks for responding to feedback, NTUllswatervalleyPaths!

For anyone else who comes across this later, it was rectified as changeset/138929303

Thanks for sorting it out, NTUllswatervalleyPaths :)

Hiya, just a quick reminder that instead of deleting objects and redrawing new ones, it’s better to keep the object and change its shape. It keeps the edit history.

See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

This is legally a bridleway, so why change it to a footpath?

The physical difference between highway=footway and highway=bridleway on the ground is not well defined, so arguably both are correct, but I don’t see a motivation to arbitrarily change from one to the other here.

Is this following some National Trust tagging guidelines somewhere? If so, could you please point me to them? Thanks

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. access=no is almost certainly not the correct tagging here, as it means nobody can physically use the track at all (even if they have permission).

See access=*#Introductory_examples

You probably mean access=private?

I removed the crossing nodes in changeset/138420785 as per the above