Hiya, thanks for trying to improve the one-way system in Lancaster, but I think motor_vehicle=permit is the most appropriate tagging, according to the wiki (access=*#List_of_possible_values).

motor_vehicle=no means access by motor vehicles is physically impossible (e.g. due to the road being too narrow) or completely illegal (e.g. no entry signs).

motor_vehicle=destination means that any vehicle is allowed as long as it’s going to a destination on that road. Typically this is signed in the UK as “except for access”.

The signage here says “authorised vehicles only”, which implies motor_vehicle=permit to me.

If you remove all the tags from the area (so it turns into a way) before splitting it, ID will allow you to split it without it turning into a multipolygon. You can then extend the newly split lines to close them, and re-add the tags to each new house.

Still a bit fiddly to do, but might be easier than learning JOSM. :)

Pete has changed those roads to something more plausible (20mph) in changeset/162719195, but again without providing any information about the source of the data (or giving the courtesy of replying to me here).

I took the liberty of converting the multi-polygon terrace to normal ways in changeset/162719039, because multi-polygons are a nightmare to maintain in the long term. They’re easy to break and don’t work well with a lot of tools. Hope that’s OK. :)

Are you sure the whole of Bourne Road and the entire estate off it (Beech Drive) is 10mph? That seems unlikely. Did you survey this?

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for contributing! This change appears to affect Lancaster and Ellel as well as Hull — please try and keep changesets small and localised, so it’s easier for others to see what you’ve changed. So this could be three changesets: one for Hull, one in Lancaster and one in Ellel.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for more information

Thanks, and happy editing :)

Hi, thanks for this (and for your other improvements in the area recently). I see what you mean about the tagging, although the access=private should have made it clear that it’s not a public car park (it’s a private place for Kendal Honda to park cars for display).

I think there should be more specific tagging than area=yes, though, to distinguish what the area is. Maybe some tag along the lines of area:highway=showroom_forecourt.

I’ve been quite busy the past few days so haven’t had a chance to research options and come up with something better. I’ll try and get back to this soon if you don’t do so first :)

👍 ta

Resolved in changeset/162482877, so I guess you saw my comment above.

You can reply to these changeset discussion comments! It’s not meant to be a one-way thing :)

Whoops, that should be Great Musgrave and Little Musgrave in the changeset comments and tags

Heya, could you explain what the intention with this edit is please? The brand= tag is for tagging branding of things, typically for when a hotel is owned by a chain. I’ve never heard of a hotel brand called ‘Private’ and the Brantwood hotel’s website doesn’t mention anything about that. Are you sure this is correct?

See brand=* for more information about the brand= key.

Hiya, thanks for all your additions to Stainton recently, it’s nice to see more detail being added to the map!

As you’re adding a lot of geometry (which is good), there are a couple of things you should probably be aware of to get the best results:

1. You can make buildings square easily by selecting them then pressing ‘Q’. This helps keep the map tidy.

2. The aerial imagery isn’t actually properly aligned to ground truth. You need to align it before starting to edit — this is why some of the buildings I’ve tidied up after you in Stainton will now look misaligned to you.

Turn on the ‘OSMUK Cadastral Parcels’ overlay in the ‘Background Settings’ panel on the right, then adjust the imagery offset until features are aligned with the blue cadastral parcels lines. This alignment varies across the country, but with the current imagery for Stainton it’s -2.41,-0.76 metres.

Once the imagery is aligned you should be able to trace buildings/walls/etc. and they’re much better aligned with ground truth (i.e. GPS).

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions :)

I’ve gone ahead and re-added it in changeset/162425099, let me know if that’s not right

Hi, me again. Why have you deleted High Man (node/5641737977/history)? Again, it’s visible on the OS OpenData StreetView data, so the name obviously means something (either a locality, fellside, or peak) and should be represented on the map. Ta

Heya, thanks for updating this construction site in Stainton. You deleted one house (way/1187864290) — was that intentional? The foundations are clearly visible in aerial imagery from when it was a construction site, and it seems unlikely that the builders would have built the foundations then not gone on to build a house on top. But it’s possible.

If so, I’ll re-add the area and explicitly tag it as ‘not constructed’ so that other editors don’t unintentionally re-add it from aerial imagery in future.

Ta

Thanks for clarifying. You accidentally deleted the pier in your edit, so I’ve added it back in changeset/162251937. Let me know if anything looks wrong with what I’ve done :)

Hiya, thanks for your recent edits locally, it’s nice to see new local contributors :)

I’ve removed the name from this particular section of footpath as it’s actually already correctly part of a ‘relation’ which describes the whole West Windermere Route.

Relations allow for walking/riding/cycling routes to be described in more detail, and deal with the problem where one section of path can be part of multiple routes — if this was done by naming the path, how would a path which is both on the Pennine Way and Pennine Bridleway be named?

There’s some more information about routes here: osm.wiki/Walking_Routes

And here are the full WWW route relations, if you’re interested:
- relation/16216506
- relation/16216507
- relation/16216508

Happy to answer any questions if you have them :)

(Partial revert in changeset/162251640)

(If you want a hand with this, or have questions, I’m happy to help!)

Has the Bike Barn Pier been demolished, or is it still physically present (but unused)?

and, if so, that section of cycle lane should be tagged as a bridge, like the road is.