Heya, is way/1274664995 meant to have any tags on it, or was it drawn accidentally? Ta

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Did you mean to delete a footpath and leat from the Lake District, given the bulk of your edit is in Birmingham? The leat is clearly visible from aerial imagery and looks like it should be mapped. What’s your reasoning for removing it? Cheers

Ah, thanks for spotting that, I didn’t notice the car parks were independent. Hopefully fixed in changeset/150416802 :)

Unlikely but not impossible? Ribblehead might just be a special case of addressing.

The new location for the node looks fine to me. I agree that 100 years ago it would definitely have been considered a hamlet (probably with a population in the hundreds for a time, if you also count those who lived here building the viaduct). I don’t think that makes the place a hamlet today though.

It’s definitely a well-known place name. Does labelling it as a locality not work for that — does it get hidden in Nominatim search, or something?

Looks great, thanks a lot for going out and checking it again!

If you go into the relation editor in JOSM, there’s a button on the left to sort the members of the relation, which is what I used. It works as long as there are no gaps.

Guideposts (and other street furniture) are mapped in their physical position, not attached to the way they’re near. I saw you’d added the guideposts to the relation, so I looked it up on route=hiking and indeed they can be added to relations, with role=guidepost. I didn’t know that before, so I’ll try and remember to do it in future.

Previously I would have mapped guideposts as standalone and unrelated to anything (in OSM terms), but this approach does seem better. Ta :)

Looks good! Thanks for updating it.

I’ve made a couple of additional tweaks in changeset/150128623, to fix the members of the Lune Valley Ramble relation (the track was in there, but not in the right order; it’s not possible to get this right in ID, so don’t worry about it); and to extract the guidepost from the way (they are mapped adjacent to footpaths).

Thanks again!

Heya, I’m not sure it’s right to call Ribblehead a hamlet (node/513869708). I’ve always known it as referring to the area of moorland. One pub, one station and a handful of spread-out farms don’t make a hamlet.

Did you remove highway=footway from way/797998741 deliberately in this changeset? From the aerial imagery, it looks like it crosses a few hedges in a private garden, so I’m guessing perhaps the PROW has been (unofficially or officially-but-not-yet-on-the-Definitive-Map) rerouted on the track round the other side of the house?

If so, let me know and I can retag the footpath as disused and add the track into the Lune Valley Ramble relation in the right place (which is a bit tricky to do with ID; I’ll use JOSM for it). :)

Is the stream/road crossing way/1273039723 a bridge or a culvert (tunnel=culvert)? It looks quite small, which typically means it’s a culvert rather than a bridge, though it can sometimes be hard to work out the best tagging. I haven’t surveyed it so I defer to you though! :) Looks like you’ve had a busy day surveying today!

Oops, wrong changeset number. I meant changeset/150055604

I’ve fixed the tagging in changeset/150048207

If my changes undo what you were trying to achieve, please let me know and provide more details about what you were trying to achieve

Hiya, and thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap :)

I’m afraid there are a few problems with the changes here, and as a result I’ve reverted them (changeset/150043922).

1. Cairns and peaks are not the same thing, and need to be mapped as separate nodes. See osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element. An example of the problems that merging them causes would be where cairns are not on the highest point of the hill — merging the nodes suddenly means they are. Another example I spotted in this changeset would be where a cairn has been tagged with an image of it — now that image is apparently associated with the hill instead.

2. This changeset moved all the hill peaks slightly on the map. You may have done this deliberately to align them with the aerial imagery, but please don’t do that without aligning the imagery to a source of ground truth first. Aerial imagery may change alignment (by a few metres) as it’s refreshed, and needs to be calibrated before relying on for alignment.

In particular, some of the hill nodes in the Lakes have previously been accurately located by GPS, and this changeset undid that. It was noted on the nodes which ones were accurately located.

See https://osmuk.org/cadastral-parcels/ for more information about imagery alignment.

3. If you wish to re-add wainwright=yes to all the Wainwrights, that should be fine.

I hope that makes sense. Apologies for reverting one of your first few edits, but you do seem to have tried to jump straight in at the deep end with quite a complex edit. Thanks

Hiya, please don’t rename canal ways to the lock name. The lock name is already correctly tagged using the lock_name tag. Please read lock=* before changing any more lock infrastructure, thanks

Super :)

For anyone reading this in future, the follow-up changes above were made as changeset/150023066

The way you do your mapping has to fit in with the capabilities of the available tools. You are knowingly creating tedious work for other people.

You’re saying there’s no consensus to osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets?

Nice work!

Great, thanks

Did you delete the EV charging station deliberately? According to the railway website, it still exists: https://ravenglass-railway.co.uk/plan-your-visit/facilities (see the Parking section).