The Castle Pub in Cockermouth is not brand Q133280052.

You need to verify suggested edits before applying them.

I have fixed this in changeset/168092430

Please stop applying automated tagging fixes without checking them. You broke the tagging on four things in Keswick, which I have fixed in changeset/168092004 and changeset/168091792

See osm.wiki/Automated_edits

I believe I’ve mentioned on your edits before. If you carry on doing it, and don’t reply, the next step will be for me to raise it with the DWG (osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group).

Thanks

What’s the source for this? The new roads don’t appear in any aerial imagery. Thanks :)

Tagged as selling maps in changeset/167771810, thanks

Heya, what’s the vending machine? It’s currently placed in the middle of a car parking aisle (I realise placing things accurately with Every Door is tricky!)

I think the POI is in the right place. It was probably the door you saw — it’s a gig bar which is only open in the evenings, so unless you were surveying then it won’t have been obvious.

Marked as open again in changeset/167690138

Heya, thanks for the updates. Are you sure that Ruskins (node/6020071092) is closed though? I’ve seen events advertised by them recently.

https://www.facebook.com/Ruskinskendal

I’ve changed it to match the geograph images in changeset/167419517. If you did survey it and I’ve made a mistake, please say and I can update or revert my edit.

If you didn’t survey it, then please stop doing MapRoulette challenges without doing any research.

Hiya, I’m not sure what you’re trying to do, but this is nowhere near a correct resolution for the footpath issue here.

The footpath looks like it runs on the road, so should be a section of the road (with appropriate access tagging) rather than a parallel way. The stream runs further to the north (see OS OpenMap imagery) where the obvious bridge is in the aerial imagery.

Very few things ever need to be tagged as layer=3.

It looks like you’re just clicking ‘resolve’ on all the issues which RapID finds in the area and then moving on to the next challenge. That’s totally not the point of MapRoulette challenges; you’re supposed to be trying to make the map better on a case-by-case basis, not zipping through to get all the points in the minimum time.

Apologies if I’ve misinterpreted what you’re doing here, but from the viewpoint of someone reviewing edits in the area, that’s what your pattern of editing looks like.

Fixed in changeset/167419168

Hiya, did you survey this? Because according to photos on geograph the cycleway (which is on the alignment of the old railway line) goes over the road. They don’t join at the crossing point, though there is a (currently unmapped) link ramp on the south side.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/88976
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/516871

The photos are about 20 years old, so there’s a chance this has changed, but I can’t see why it would change that significantly. Ta

That’s great, thanks very much for taking the time to fix them :)

(For anyone looking at this later, they were fixed as changeset/167389712)

Hiya, if you’re going to add lots of buildings, please make sure the aerial imagery is lined up with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before starting. That eliminates any imagery offset error, which varies about 0-3m in both axes across the country. In this bit of Kendal it looks like it’s about 0.09,-0.83m for the Bing imagery, which means these buildings are all about 1m misaligned from ground truth. Thanks :)

the changeset message should read ‘from fell track’ (typo)

Bing offset to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels: -3.64,-0.72, measured in Keswick near the River Greta tunnel portal (from changeset/167155274). Kept the same Bing offset across the edit, so I guess it might have drifted as I headed north west

Bing offset to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels: -3.64,-0.72, measured in Keswick near the River Greta tunnel portal. Kept the same Bing offset across the edit, so I guess it might have drifted as I headed north west

If you’re exporting data from OSM and need to know what’s in the gap then I guess you need to add the highway areas to the map (area:highway=*). Mapping the highway area as grass breaks others’ use of the data — for example, someone might use OSM to calculate how much of a town is green space, and having the grass mapped that way would significantly overcount its area.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean about footpaths (if you could link to an example that would be helpful), but it sounds like you’re talking about the links which make the footpath network routable. If the footpath centrelines aren’t joined to the road centrelines at crossings, then routing can’t work. The section of footpath which is on the road area can be tagged with footway=link (or highway=crossing if it’s a designated crossing) to differentiate it from the section above the kerb.

Nice work! :D

Thanks for the clarification, and for taking the time to update the map :)

Reverted in changeset/167085620 and changeset/167085679.

Heya, do you know if this is a temporary closure, or a permanent one?

If it’s a temporary closure then I’ll reinstate the footpath geometry on OSM and tag it as temporarily closed, so it’s easier to re-add it to the map when it’s reopened.