Hiya, what was your source for this information?

Some of the nodes have an addr:housename which looks unlikely (e.g. node/2114551305) and I’d like to double check them.

Thanks :)

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for the edits you’ve made recently around Hornby :)

It looks like you’re quite keen to tackle bigger changes. There are a couple of things you should probably be aware of first:

1. There’s a tagging scheme for farmland which differentiates between pasture (grazing), uncultivated hay fields, and higher productivity ryegrass hay/sileage fields. While it can be a bit hard to tell the usage of a field from aerial imagery (and they do change over time), if you have some local knowledge it should be possible to tag a field appropriately for its predominant use. See osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse

Your username suggests you know a thing or two about farming. Is that the case? :) If so it would be wonderful to have your input.

2. The aerial imagery is unfortunately not perfectly aligned to ground truth. If you’re going to add significant new amounts of geometry, or realign existing geometry, please check the imagery is aligned before starting. Turn on the ‘OSMUK Cadastral Parcels’ overlay in the ‘Background Settings’ on the right, and adjust the ‘Imagery Offset’ until the aerial imagery matches the Cadastral Parcels in a few key areas. I find fence junctions or house boundaries are easy to align.

The alignment is normally up to about 2m out in either direction in this area of the North West, and it varies by area, so needs to be re-aligned every time you start editing a new area.

I think the alignment for Hornby itself is 0.14,-1 with the current Bing imagery.

I hope that makes sense, and sorry to introduce this all at once — I just wanted to make you aware of it before you create loads of fields which are all misaligned from ground truth! Happy to answer questions if you have any :)

Looks good, thanks for taking the time to sort this out :)

No worries, I’ve made the same mistake before. :) Good to know things are working for you now.

Just to check: were you using OsmAnd+’s vehicle routing mode, or its pedestrian routing mode? I just tried with pedestrian routing mode and it plotted the route along this path fine.

It looks like an oversight that the other part was not also marked as access=private. I’ve fixed that, thanks.

I’m not sure what you mean by Track #143420491. Could you link to it please? (Right-click on the map and choose ‘Query features’.)

Hiya, thanks for trying to improve the map!

Unfortunately your change here is not correct: the access=private tag sets the default tagging (including access for vehicles, bikes, horses, etc.), and the foot=designated tag then takes priority over that, so this path was already correctly marked as accessible to the public on foot.

See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths and access=*#Transport_mode_restrictions for more information.

What was it that brought you here trying to change this particular path? Is something not working somewhere else? Ta

Thanks for the fast reply. Playgrounds reverted in changeset/160500411#map=9/54.822/-4.573 :)

Hiya, did you survey the two play areas (way/1079118850, way/1158458980)? Play area surfacing is complicated, and can’t be worked out from aerial imagery. I don’t think those values should be changed unless you’ve surveyed them in person.

Heya, thanks for editing the map. Do you know if the footpath runs down the driveway on the north side of that house (way/387064262)? If not, how does it connect through to the road? The official rights of way overlay suggests the footpath officially runs round the south side of the house, but presumably it’s been re-routed around the house recently? Ta :)

I surveyed it today and I think it’s more like surface=rubber than surface=tartan, so I changed it to that in changeset/160170824

Handy photo! The wiki page for basketball suggests that a node is the correct way to map this (see sport=basketball#Court_without_markings), although perhaps it should be one node per practice hoop, rather than one for the entire paved area? Potentially also add hoops=1 to each node to make things clearer (see hoops=*)?

I’ll add a note to the map to promote a re-survey and hopefully someone will go and take another closer at the surface soon.

Yes, there is a bit of a fundamental tension here. Data consumers want a restricted set of well-defined values for things, but unfortunately the real world has a long tail of odd ways of building things which won’t fit within that set. For an area like Lancaster which has had a reasonable amount of QA done on its map already, the rare surface values that remain are probably there for a good reason.

Personally I think that MapRoulette tasks like this one should only be used to fix obvious typos in surfaces. Anything more than that needs an in-person survey to check what the original mapper meant with their tagging. It can be quite hard to decide between “was the original mapper aware of this other, more standard, surface tag, and they deliberately didn’t choose it for some reason; or were they unaware of it and would have used it if they’d known about it?”.

There’s some discussion of this topic on the wiki: osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like

Anyway, thanks again for your work on improving the map. I see a number of your MapRoulette edits in the area I’m interested in, and most of them have been obvious and welcome improvements. :D

I would read that page as meaning ‘tartan’ can be used as a generic name for all branded running/athletics surfaces — but this is a multi-use games area. Its surface could as easily be acrylic, plastic or perhaps clay.

Heya, did you survey this in person? I remember trying quite hard to find a suitable surface value when I surveyed it, and as far as I remember, tartan wasn’t suitable. It was a while ago though

Thanks! :D

Yeah, I think those notes are only visible in MapRoulette — all others see on OSM is the text on changeset/160068625, unless they follow the MapRoulette link. I agree, it’s a bit of a pain to keep the two in sync!

Thanks for your quick reply. When you submit your edit, you should be given an opportunity to change the suggested changeset comment — if you couldn’t complete the MapRoulette task (because the basketball area was obscured by trees or whatever) then it would be helpful to others to edit the changeset comment and say so — otherwise when others review your changeset, they get confused by the fact you say you’ve converted a basketball court node but the contents of the changeset doesn’t match that. Thanks :)

Hiya, this edit doesn’t appear to have anything to do with graveyards, it appears to be adding a culvert to Boundary Stream. Please make sure your changeset descriptions are accurate — see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments, thanks :)

Hiya, this edit doesn’t appear to have anything to do with basketball pitches — what were you trying to do? Thanks

Yeah I asked on the original changeset (changeset/159701793) which marked it as disused, but didn’t get an answer.

Maybe leave it until the next issue of the bus timetables and see whether the stop gets removed?

Or see if there’s anything obvious in local media about what’s happening.