No worries, glad to help get things sorted. Feel free to leave a note on the map or message me (osm.org/message/new/gurglypipe) if you find any further problems around your local area.

I’ve updated the note on the toilet and checked that it’s tagged as only being for customers to use.

Thanks again for your help!

OK, thanks for the confirmation. I’ve changed the tagging in changeset/159957219 — if you want to take a look at it and confirm it matches the state of things, I think we should be done here.

As I said, it’ll take several weeks for the changes to percolate down to people’s apps. Unfortunately there’s no way round that.

One follow-up question: currently there are some customer toilets mapped in the building just south of the path. There’s a note on them asking to confirm their location — are you able to confirm whether they’re in that building or whether they’re somewhere else around the farm? It would be nice for me to be able to get that sorted while you’re here!

Thanks again

Thanks for your reply, and thanks for helping your neighbours out, that’s kind.

(For anyone else reading along, this is in reply to changeset/159776098#c1355574)

You have managed to edit the map successfully, but I have re-edited the tagging since, as the tags you’d chosen didn’t match the description you’d given of the issue.

Previously you said the path running along the south side of the tea garden is for the owners and customers. That implies that foot=customers is the appropriate tagging. In your message now you say that it’s private and not open to anyone (except presumably the owners), which would suggest foot=private is appropriate.

Both foot=customers and foot=private should prevent walking apps from routing people along the path by default, but in any case it will likely take a few weeks to a few months for all the apps to update — they only periodically re-download their data from OSM (and other sources) to update their maps. So unfortunately any change we make to fix this in OSM will take some time to trickle down to users.

Additionally, the tagging informal=yes relates to whether a path is planned, rather than whether it’s a public right of way. A good example of informal=yes would be a path which cuts the corner on a playing field (see informal=yes). So from what you say, I don’t think this path is informal (in the OSM sense).

So, to sum that up: if the path is meant to be used by customers (but not the public), it should be foot=customers. If it’s only meant to be used by the owners (and not customers or the public), foot=private. I would suggest removing informal=yes in any case, and unfortunately whatever we do here will take several weeks to trickle down to users of walking apps. But it will get there in the end.

Let me know if that makes sense, and I can make the appropriate changes and double-check things with you. Ta

And this is an improvement?

Now you’ve put a kink in Water Street too.

If the LCN tagging is not continuous, split ways and add more lcn=yes tags. There’s no need to change geometry or change cycleway links to do that.

Those cycleway links were in place because the span of a cycleway as it crosses into a road carriageway is clearly different from the cycleway as it continues outside the carriageway. Hence the separate tagging and separate way.

I still think these would be more accurately represented as crossing=traffic_signals (as there are *traffic* signals here), but Pete Owens will revert that change if I make it. At least adding button_operated= and crossing:signals=no makes things a bit clearer.

crossing:signals=shared from osm.wiki/Proposal:Crossing_signalization would make things clearer still, but that tagging is still a proposal.

Please explain how this is an improvement on how the map was before.

The road now has a big kink in it, which doesn’t exist in reality.

The cycle path now also has a big kink in it, which doesn’t exist in reality. By having it tagged as cycleway=link, the misalignment between the cycleway in the map and on the ground was at least communicated to the consumer of the map before, as cycleway=link is explicitly only for routing purposes.

Instead of summarily deleting my work on the cycle path on Chapel Street, it would be politer for you to talk to me about it. Otherwise whatever difference of opinion we have about the tagging guidelines won’t ever be resolved.

Retagged using lifecycle prefixes (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) in changeset/159843988.

Hiya, are you sure this is the correct landuse here? Presumably you’re adding it because of the number of B&Bs around The Heads? This area of Keswick has a relatively residential feel (all the B&Bs are converted old houses), and was already inside a landuse=residential area. I suggest it should stay as landuse=residential.

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your edits around Low Bridge End.

It looks like you might be trying to solve a routing problem where apps are planning people’s walks to use the tea garden as a through route? Can you provide some more details about what’s happening and which apps are being problematic here?

From your changeset comments, it looks like the previous tagging (access=no, foot=customers, highway=footway) was correct, and these changes to mark it as informal=yes and access=private aren’t correct. Access tagging in OpenStreetMap is unfortunately complicated (because it reflects access legislation in the UK and worldwide), but I’d like to help to make sure it’s correct here.

In order for me to do that, I’ll need to know more about the specific routing problem and problematic apps, as well as what the intended access is for the driveway and footpath. As I understand it from your comments, the driveway is accessible to customers in vehicles and on foot, and the footpath is accessible to customers on foot. Both are not meant to be used by non-customers. Is that correct?

Thanks :)

Hiya, thanks for your updates around Forton recently. Can you please clarify what’s happening with this bus stop? Is it temporarily out of service, or has it been permanently removed? It’s currently still listed on several bus routes (40, 41, 42). Ta

Oops, thanks for fixing that :)

Heya, I think there might be a typo in the new cuisine value. Did you intend to add ‘drinks’ or something like that?

I’ve tweaked the outdoor_seating for the Cornish Bakery in changeset/159516980 to try and distinguish between ‘fixed’ outdoor seating (like a beer garden or yard) and the more seasonal seating I think the Cornish Bakery has (in the street). Let me know if you think that’s a bad idea

Thanks! I had a brief look through the window of the Brown Cow and couldn’t see a yard, but I should have checked harder.

Heya, thanks for this. I’m not so sure about the tagging of Kinsey Cave as an area which is a cave entrance, so I’ve changed it to natural=cave and tweaked the heritage tagging in changeset/159505778. Take a look and let me know if you think I’ve made a mistake, thanks!

If you disagree with my edits, please engage in discussion about them, as I have been trying to do with you:
- changeset/159067050
- changeset/159073174

Calling them ‘vandalism’ is, I think, attributing malice to me where there is none.

As I put in the changeset comment for changeset/159358834, I removed these speed limits to prompt a re-survey, because I believe you did not survey this speed limit, and the limit looks potentially incorrect (all other nearby residential roads are 20mph).

If you can show you’ve surveyed it (a recent photo of the entrance to the road where a speed limit sign would be would suffice), then that would be great.

As it is, you’ve been making mass edits (changeset/159058612, changeset/159067914, changeset/159497487, etc.) without providing any sources for your data.

This has resulted in several demonstrably wrong speed limits or access tagging (fixes for them in changeset/159320399, changeset/159237475, changeset/159072623, changeset/158966610).
Having incorrect data like this in the OSM database is worse than having no data, as fewer people will question data which is present vs data which is missing. Missing data prompts people to survey it using tools like StreetComplete. Resurveying existing data is less common.

As someone with over 8000 edits to their name, I would hope you’d picked up best practices like providing sources and writing relevant changeset comments by now. (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments)

Please start to provide sources for your data, and engage in discussion with the rest of the community you’re participating in. If you have a disagreement about my edits, raise it with me — or if you don’t want to do that, then raise it with the Data Working Group (osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group).
If you continue to make mass edits, without providing sources, around the area of the north west which I am familiar with, I will be reporting your edits to the DWG, as I have lost trust in your sourcing for them. In that case, some form of mediation and escalation from them might be necessary.

Diversion finally removed in changeset/159414837 (oops, we forgot to update it sooner!)

After looking at this edit in a bit more detail, I have a few questions:

1. Why change way/1028435029 from residential to construction? Someone else edited it only a month ago and it looks like the estate is now mostly constructed and occupied (look at Mapbox imagery). I’ve changed it back in changeset/159360711.

2. You added building=yes to various buildings in Blackpool which were already correctly tagged with building:part=yes. See building:part=* for how building parts are tagged. I’ve removed the new building=yes tags in changeset/159360491.

3. Why did you delete several houses (like way/1304243429) in Middlesbrough? They appear under construction on Esri imagery. I’ve re-added them in changeset/159360654.

Thanks