(Following on from discussion on changeset/150711518)

Heya, thanks for doing more work to improve the map round here.

The tagging around Heather Garth still looks quite unconventional to me, and unconventional tagging leads to things on the map being misinterpreted.

I’m trying to work out if ‘Heather Garth’ is the name of a building, or of a street. As in, is the building there a block of flats called Heather Garth, with flats 1-6, which is on an unnamed (but private and operated by the owners of the flats) yard off Bank Street? Or is the building there actually a couple of separately numbered houses on a very short road which is called Heather Garth?

Or, put a different way, the map currently indicates that the address for one of the flats there would be:
1 Heather Garth [house name]
Heather Garth [road name]
Keswick
CA12 5JW

Another way of looking at the same question would be: can you confirm where exactly the name ‘Heather Garth’ is printed in that area? e.g. Is it on a house name plate by a front door, or on a road name sign, or both, or something else?

If I’ve interpreted things correctly, and the intention with this edit was to mark the gravel hardstanding as being owned by the Heather Garth apartments, then I suspect the correct tagging for that is to add the operator= tag to the hardstanding, rather than osm.wiki/Tag:name=, and change it from highway=residential (which typically indicates a public road) to highway=service (which indicates something more private). In any case, the access tagging is correct on the hardstanding, from your previous edits here.

Looking forwards to having this little corner of Keswick ironed out :) Ta

🤣 Thanks 😅

ah, yes, that makes sense. I’ve re-added the line of it in changeset/151309993, but marked it as disused and private. This should hopefully mean it doesn’t reappear on mazemap. Let me know if it looks incorrect or if you have more suggestions for improving it. :)

Mazemap does seem to have a problem with paths/roads which are (correctly) tagged as access=private. There’s a footpath in the woods near Infolab21 and Hazelrigg Lane which is marked as private but which shows up as if it were public in Mazemap. Assuming that path still exists and is mapped correctly, I’m not sure what can be done about the problem in mazemap for it. Hopefully it’s less impactful than a path around Bigforth Barn though!

I’ve e-mailed the mazemap company to ask about this issue, as it’s likely to affect many of their customers, and could be causing people to incorrectly delete valid data from OpenStreetMap in an effort to fix things on their mazemap instances.

Anyway, thanks again for your improvements to the map, and for the time you’ve taken to research and explain them, it’s appreciated!

👌

Hi again :) Does the access road around the west side of Bigforth Barn still exist, even as private access only? If so, it should be drawn on the map and tagged as access=private. If not, someone’s going to eventually re-add it (from aerial imagery) but without appropriate access tagging.

There’s some explanation of the reasoning for this policy (albeit applied to private land rather than just private works access) here: osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Good to know, thanks. Looking at Mazemap, it does look like additional details added through StreetComplete will feed into it, if someone finds a spare half hour to play around with it. :)

Thanks again for clarifying things for me. I’ve updated the map slightly to point to this conversation as a source for the names on those roads, to reduce the risk that someone removes them in future (until the signs are installed on the ground). Ta

Hiya, thanks for your interesting reply. If I understand you correctly, the uni is deciding to name these roads now — rather than you adding already-existing names which were missing on the map?

Are there plans to install physical road signs on these two roads, with the names? It’ll help with people’s navigation, and also reduce the chance that someone removes the names in the future as unverifiable (see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability). It’s unlikely that would happen, but possible.

Can I ask what the university’s policy or use of OpenStreetMap is? Does it feed into official maps, or something like that? I’ve seen various edits from different members of the facilities department over the past couple of years. It’s great to see, but it’s left me a little curious as to what the bigger picture is :)

If OSM is something which is feeding into official uni maps or navigation, can I suggest you take a look at using StreetComplete (https://streetcomplete.app/) to fill in some detail on the map? It helps improve the map for accessible access, pedestrians and cyclists in particular.

Ta :)

Reverted as changeset/151258389 due to no response

No worries. What in particular do you want to learn? Message me (osm.org/message/new/gurglypipe) and I’ll be happy to provide pointers

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Are you sure those road names are signed as such on the ground? I’ve surveyed round there several times and have never seen a road name sign for either of them.

I’ve made those changes as changeset/151174639

Hi, if deleting shops or amenities, please don’t fully delete the node. Doing so loses the address data, which will be useful if the shop reopens as something else. Instead, please add a lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) to the shop= or amenity= tag and change name= to osm.wiki/Tag:old_name=.

e.g. disused:amenity=clinic old_name=Bio Med Clinic

Thanks

Why?

I’ve changed the tagging to use seamark:buoy_special_purpose in changeset/151002568, please say if that’s not correct. Thanks

Cheers. I’ve moved the names off the buildings and into addr:street tagging, then, as that’s the convention for these things.

I’ve also added the railing, hopefully in the right place.

Thanks again for your help, please do keep editing and adding local detail as you see it :)

Hiya, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. Are these racing markers permanent, or are they for a specific event?

If they’re permanent, are they buoys? If so they may be better off tagged as seamark:buoy_special_purpose:category=racing (see seamark:buoy_special_purpose:category=racing and related pages). The tagging scheme is a little complex, so I can help change the tagging if you wish.

If they’re not permanent, or are not physically marked, they probably don’t belong in OpenStreetMap — see osm.wiki/Verifiability

Thanks :)

That’s great, thanks very much for your detailed answer and follow-up edits. They should help improve the map’s accuracy for everyone.

I’ve made a few follow-up edits to tweak the tagging to conform to various conventions. Please let me know if anything there is wrong.

One more question: is Esme Gardens the name of a road, or the name of a house? It’s set as the name of way/69180818 and way/560751505 (and the adjacent building), which seems a little odd. Typically either a road is named or a building is named, but not usually both the same.

Thanks :)

Looking good! One question — should way/1278802007 be waterway=drain or waterway=ditch? As I understand the tagging scheme, the former implies a bigger construction which I’d associate with urban drainage. The latter is what I believe is typically used for field drains. There are, however, examples where waterway=drain is appropriate for field drainage (e.g. in the Lyth valley), hence my question.

waterway=drain
waterway=ditch

Hope you’re enjoying the sun! :)

And is there no way through (even on foot or for customers) from Bank Street to Esme Gardens? Has something been built in the way?

You’ve renamed the access road as ‘Heather Garth’, but that’s the name of only one of the guest houses. Is that actually the road name?

Thanks

Hiya, what’s this area (way/988569106) used for now, if not customer parking? Ta