Hi. You changed the speed limit on the church access road (way/70457804) from 5mph to 20mph in this changeset. Was that as the result of a survey? It was previously surveyed as 5mph in changeset/70506361

Great, thanks for checking :)

That sounds fantastic :D

Sounds good! I assume the ranger team have a way of feeding back path changes to you so the map continues to be updated over time?

Yeah, there’s a watercourse visible on the OS OpenData StreetView imagery. It might be seasonal, if it wasn’t visible when you cycled through.

I originally mapped this as a bridge on a survey in 2019 (changeset/70642115), but I might have been lax about the difference between bridge and culvert.

I’ve added the stream/ditch and changed the bridge to a culvert in changeset/171142902. Please let me know if that matches what you saw, as I haven’t visited for a few months :)

OK, that reasoning makes sense. Thank you for sharing it.

It’s not completely clear cut, because councils have historically labelled quite a few different standards of path as a cycle path (narrow ones, ones without repeater signs, ones with unsuitable surfaces) and I’ve had the misfortune of cycling along them. Given the signage on the opposite side, as you say, that does make it more likely that this path isn’t meant as a cycle route, despite linking to a toucan crossing. Perhaps they put the toucan crossing in for future proofing.

I’ve added a note to the way in changeset/171142314 to point other mappers to this discussion in case they think it’s mistagged in future.

OK, thanks, that clears that up. That kind of information would have been very useful to have in your changeset comment :)

I’ve added a note to the way in changeset/171129521 pointing to this discussion so hopefully future mappers don’t undo the changes, because to a mapper without a really detailed knowledge of cycle path design/law, that pavement does look like it should be a cycle path.

Firstly, it’s good to hear about the reasoning for you changing the speed limit. It sounds unusual that the speed limit signs were removed, but stuff like that does happen, and I agree that waiting to see if it was a permanent or temporary change made sense. That resolves my question about the 20mph → 30mph change, thank you.

I gave a reason for why I removed those tags at the time. Changing the speed limit from 20mph to 30mph is a really unusual change (the council almost never increases speed limits), and unusual changes, even more so than other map changes, need to come with supporting evidence. Your changeset comment at the time said “swarthmoor 20 zone”, with no mention of a change to 30mph or why that might be. If you’d have mentioned in your changeset at the time about the speed limit signs being removed, that would have made everything clear to other mappers who look at this in future.

I care about the quality of the map. While you might interpret my comments and changes as “personal animosity”, that’s not my intention. I only comment when something is questionable or provably wrong (on _any_ edits in the north west, not targeting yours), and you’ve made a lot of edits like that. List your sources, as the DWG requested you to, and as many other mappers manage to do on a routine basis, and I will stop.

My comments on your changesets have become more blunt over the months only because you don’t reply to any of them. I’m open to a friendlier working relationship — we’re both obviously quite invested in editing the map, and that’s not going to change. I think the first step towards that is continuing a dialogue. :)

Hiya, did you mean to delete the bridge on way/692645075 ?

Nice!

Thanks for fixing it!

(Fixed in changeset/170782235, for anyone reading this in future)

Heya, thanks for these improvements!

I noticed that way/26486939 is part of the walking route, but it has a note (from before your changes) which says “closed to the public since 2007”, and its access tagging is private. Is it open again, and does the access tagging need updating? Thanks :)

Heya, thanks for these updates, this looks like a nice new route.

One question — did you intend to change the speed limit on way/42862328 from 20mph to 50? That looks a bit unlikely for a residential road. Ta :)

What are your sources?

What are your sources? Two other people have surveyed this pavement/cycle path in person and cannot work out whether it’s meant to be a cycle path or pedestrian only. Please share where you’re getting your information from.

Sounds good to me, thanks for checking :)

For cropland, allowing for the margins is probably the right approach if they’re big margins, or if they contain vastly different things from what’s in the field (like trees or scrub). I’m used to mapping mostly sheep pasture, where there are no margins!

If the fields are used in rotation there’s no great answer. You could either invent some tags to describe the rotation, or tag the fields as they’re seen in aerial imagery. That will at least give a snapshot of the rotation at one point in time, which is likely representative of the bigger picture.

Cheers :)

I’ve made my suggested changes in changeset/170695530. Please say if you think they’re not correct, thanks

Heya, thanks for your edits around here recently.

Did you spot the second Marl Hill, just to the east? node/29544795

Do you know which one is the real summit? OpenTopoMap shows them both with the same number of contour lines, which isn’t much help.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your edits around Langwathby recently. :)

If you’re going to be adding a lot of farmland, it would be good to use the tagging scheme for farmland in the north of England, which differentiates between arable crops, high yield grass, and pasture. See osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse

Note that you probably also want to join the polygons for adjacent fields together.

You may also want to turn the ‘Cadastral Parcels’ layer on (in ‘Overlays’ under ‘Background Settings’ on the right) and ensure the aerial imagery is aligned to it. I think the alignment offset for around Langwathby is (0,0), but it can vary from area to area, by up to about 3m in each dimension. This is due to parallax error (and other errors) in the aerial imagery. The cadastral parcels can otherwise also help with getting the boundaries for woods right, where they’re obscured by branches.

Hope that makes sense, happy to answer any questions if you have them :)