OK, I’ve updated the access tagging on all the estuary bridleways/BOATs I know of (hopefully I haven’t missed any), and the changesets are:
- changeset/140657034
- changeset/140657122
- changeset/140657166
- changeset/140657219

I’ve reinstated the old consensus access tagging in changeset/140657034.

Feel free to edit it further (or let me know) if I’ve got anything wrong

I’ve done it in changeset/140632117, thanks for the detailed info :)

Hiya :) Is the gate here on the path inside the park, or on the boundary fence, and OSM is missing a path to Regent Park Avenue?

Hiya. Is landuse=grass the most specific tagging for these areas? landuse=grass describes it as to be used for “smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout”.

These look like meadows to me. Are they not?

Great, thanks for that, and thanks for your attention to detail in the Morecambe/Lancaster area :)

You should be able to select a node, right-click on it and select ‘Extract’. That’ll separate it from the way and you can then drag it to the position you want.

Heya, are node/11132853527 and node/11132853547 definitely in the middle of the road? I assume they’re meant to be off to the side and Every Door has snapped them to the road incorrectly?

I thought it might be something like that. I’m sorry to hear that :(

@basilEed1524, @Overtess2V3_trcTmakiTgTehueco, your comments here are nothing to do with this changeset, and are abusive and obscene.

If you have an issue with changes made by another editor, you can discuss them rationally and politely with the editor, on the relevant changeset, without leaving comments on unrelated changes they’ve made.

If you can’t discuss things rationally and politely, perhaps don’t comment at all.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Note that when adding buildings, you can press the Q key (with the building selected) to automatically square its corners. This can make adding regular buildings easier.

Note also that the aerial imagery for Seascale is slightly misaligned. You should set the Imagery Offset (under Background Settings on the right) to -1.7,-2.44 here. This varies across the country.

Happy editing :)

The route follows geometry already in OSM. As the northern sections of the route are constructed by the LDNPA, more footpaths may be built adjacent to the road. When that happens, the route relation needs to be modified to use them. For now, it mostly uses the road in OSM, but this will be enough to get people walking/cycling/riding in the right place.

As an update:

I have been pointed at a previous discussion about DoBIH licensing at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-February/022515.html, which indicates that DoBIH have at least previously been OK with an attribution waiver for importing their data.

I am trying to chase up that waiver document. If that fails, I’ll contact DoBIH to get a new one off them so that the licensing situation here is clarified.

If that all works out, it could lead to a full import of the precise surveyed locations from DoBIH.

@AWMapper, any updates? AndrewSaunders has unilaterally changed the path designation again here: changeset/139718130

Hi, do you have any answers to the questions which people previously asked of you on changeset/138109479, about this path?

The path may well have been blocked using non-intrusive methods such as piles of stones. Signs are not normally how National Trust discourage people from using paths on rocky upland areas. Were there any indications of this?

For anyone who comes across this later, the points were subsequently extracted and fixed up in changeset/139691870

Thanks. I don’t think that quite did it — the points need to be extracted from the ways first, and perhaps Every Door can’t do that?

I’ve fixed things up in changeset/139691870 :)

Is node/11100300210 meant to be on the road, or on the path/steps?

And is node/11100291768 meant to be in the road, or next to it? :)

Indeed, highway=track is incorrect (as per all the previous comments in this discussion) and should not have been added in changeset/138237627. Similarly with the access tagging changes in that changeset.

The same is true of the other cross-bay routes around Morecambe Bay and Furness. The tagging should likely be made consistent between all of them.