Why? landuse=residential seems like a slightly better fit, as these areas are full of buildings built as stand-alone holiday houses.

Changes re-applied to the correct object in changeset/155193866

The previous tagging was restored in The previous tagging was restored in changeset/154582901. See discussion on changeset/154575258.

The previous tagging was restored in changeset/154582901.

I’ve messaged RaccoonFederation (the mission author) about it

Whoever authored that mission on pic4review needs to make it more geographically specific. https://pic4review.pavie.info/#/mission/2724 is currently scoped to the entirety of the UK. aiui pic4review missions should really be scoped to a single city.

Please can you split changesets like this up. One changeset which covers over half of the UK is hard for others to review. See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

For anyone reading this later, the change to surface=compacted was made in changeset/154251177. Thanks!

haha, I’m assuming the numbering is something to do with grouping odds and evens

Thanks. Looking at the latest aerial imagery, it looks like number 3 might actually be two semi-detached houses rather than one detached house; it looks like there’s a fence across the back garden. Is it semis?

Hi, are you sure the surface of Elderberry Drive is loose gravel? That would be unusual for a residential road, and it looks like asphalt from aerial imagery.

Thanks. Yeah, your definition of scar matches my understanding. Small cliffs which have since been partially covered up would make sense.

I mean Black Scars as well, but I was specifically referring to Sea Wood Scar (way/1299232863) when looking at the single rock 150m away on aerial imagery. :)

I understand what you are trying to achieve, thanks for taking the time to add this detail. It’s tricky to interpret old maps!

If you’re uncertain about the shape of things, I suggest it’s probably best to represent them as a node or way, rather than an area, and then that uncertainty is represented in the mapping, rather than a false accuracy coming from using an area.

You might find some more information on geograph: I can’t find anything for Black Scars or Sea Wood Scar, but Wadhead Scar comes up with some results (https://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=211699742) which could help refine that.

Thanks for looking into it. It’s a shame EveryDoor is buggy around this, but at least that explains things.

I’ve removed the duplicate gate in changeset/154088786

Cheers :)

Hiya, are you really sure about this? There’s already a gate mapped on that path, less than a metre away (node/11057017658). Last time I was there, a few months ago, there were not two gates in a row.

You could have used alt_name or official_name or any one of the other name variant tags (name=*#Variants) so that each ground could be tagged with *both* names rather than the one you were searching for. Other people may search for the sponsor name.

The name of something on OSM should match how it’s signposted on the ground: name=*#Values

Super, thanks :)

(For anyone reading this afterwards, the extra kissing gate was removed in changeset/153971347)

Heya! There’s already a kissing gate mapped just a few metres west of this one. Are there actually two, or do the two mapped ones need to be combined somehow. Ta :)

👍

Thank you!

There are still 6 gates marked as locked=yes while being on a public footpath, in the query which JassKurn put together above (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Nb7). Would you be able to verify the status of those gates too please? They may also be causing routing issues.

For ease of future reference, those two nodes were fixed in:
changeset/153962947 and changeset/153963166.