OK, ta.

I’m confused. In changeset/150711518 you said it was private parking for residents. Thus the amenity=parking (with access=private) was correct.

Was that incorrect?

Hiya, thanks for updating this. As a tip, when somewhere’s closed down it’s better to mark it as disused (using a lifecycle prefix, osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) and change name=Snooty Fox to old_name=Snooty Fox. This allows people to see that it’s closed, rather than have the map look like it never existed in the first place.

I’ve made these changes in changeset/151887233

Thanks and happy mapping :)

Someone needs to survey it to find out the ground truth, before deleting any existing information (such as the amenity=yes tag) from the map.

Yes, what you suggest might well be better than place=neighbourhood. Feel free to change it, thanks :)

Reverted as changeset/151662883. natural=shrubbery doesn’t make sense as these areas are human-made, not natural.

Can you please stop making mechanical tag updates without local knowledge?

Thanks for the confirmation!

The wiki says “*verify* if it could be tagged with another tag” (emphasis mine), it doesn’t say “remove the tag without replacement” :)

Tagging fixed/updated in changeset/151574258 and changeset/151574399

@DorneyLake123, please don’t change ‘invalid’ farmland/meadow tagging without local knowledge of what’s actually cultivated there and how, otherwise you’re likely to lose information from the map.

Indeed, this change is not correct.

This land is not *natural* grassland, it’s cultivated, and so should be tagged as landuse=meadow meadow=agricultural. See osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse

That tagging is different from how I tagged it 2 years ago because my understanding of grass culture has improved, and I think the tagging standards around farmland-vs-meadow have solidified in the general OSM community a bit.

Heya. According to note note/4252354 and MapThePaths, the road running through the caravan park *is* a public footpath where it links the bridleway and footpath.

Given the recent note, I’ve changed the access tagging to reflect that in changeset/151573670.

Given that you surveyed it a year ago and marked it as access=private I guess there might be more to it than MapThePaths suggests, though? If it really is access=private and foot=private then it’ll need updating again and perhaps a note= adding to explain the situation. Ta

Hi, are you local? This looks like you’re removing information (that this area is a public amenity) from the map, without adding in better/alternative tagging. Please don’t do that.

Several of the ones I noticed being changed were crags, which could probably more specifically be tagged as natural=cliff, for example.

The other ones which are knolls/rises probably still should be natural=peak if they have a name, since natural=peak is more specific than place=locality. You could add a prominence= tag (prominence=*) to them, if the prominence is known and suitably licensed for inclusion in OSM. That could be used to highlight or downplay them in the rendering if needed, in future (I don’t think it affects the rendering at the moment).

Heya, Why change a load of things which, from their name, look like hills, from natural=peak to place=locality? place=locality isn’t very specific tagging.

See osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom

(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!

👌