Thanks. Although the fact that the UK seems to rely on all contributors having read the mailing list archive (or asking repeat questions on the mailing list) is somewhat frustrating. That’s really the point of having a wiki.

It does. I’ve closed that note, thanks for pointing it out.

Ah, this is more complex than I thought. I was just going off the descriptions of highway={footway,path} in iD. I have not verified the path’s access restrictions in person, although given the area they’re probably going to be the same as the shooting track since it’s all moorland under the same land owner.

Unless anyone’s been there recently and can confidently say the access restrictions, I’d suggest changing it back to highway=footway to be conservative.

Thanks for the pointers!

See highway=path; it’s not urban. Feel free to improve the cairn mapping; I was just fixing the tagging.

I think that’s right, yes.

Nice work!

Use highway=path since it’s an off-road path. I’ve now fixed this.

Use landmark=cairn man_made=cairn instead. I’ve now fixed this.

I think you might need to route the sidewalk into the crossing island with a footway=crossing (footway=crossing).

Nice work, but careful with roof shapes. It’s a slippery slope towards doing the wall colours and drives and hedges and individual flower beds. :-P

Cool. Keep up the good work! If you’re wanting to map this area in extreme detail, you might also want to look at osm.wiki/Simple_3D_buildings#Roof and adding the fences/walls/hedges between the properties, and their drives. I did that for a few areas in Kendal (osm.org/#map=18/54.31047/-2.75347) and the result is attractive (I think), although probably not worth the effort unless you really care about the area.

It looks to me like relation:building is designed for 3D and indoor mapping; its intended use case doesn’t seem to cover semis (osm.wiki/Relation:building). What you’re doing doesn’t seem incorrect, but it does seem over-complicated to me. What extra information does the use of a relation provide, which mapping two areas with two common nodes doesn’t? When mapping semis, I’ve been doing that: creating two areas which share common nodes on the party wall, with both areas tagged as building=house. I’m not an expert on this though! If you’re still unsure, maybe it makes sense to bring this up on the talk-gb mailing list?

If these are houses, you can use building=house rather than building=residential; it’s more specific. (Don’t be tempted by building=semi, since that’s for tagging an outline for a pair of semis, rather than the individual houses themselves.)

You could maybe use entrance= on the doorways, and addr:flats=1;3;5 (for example) on the entrance node for those numbers, and addr:flats=7;9 for another entrance node. If the number of front doors doesn’t match the number of addresses for the building, it’s almost certainly a set of flats (or a HMO, but you can tag that like flats).

I don’t think addr:interpolation is valid to use on areas — it needs to be used on a line. osm.wiki/Addresses#Using_interpolation

Are those building on Holden Way actually houses, or are they apartments? building=apartments

It would be helpful if you could provide a description of your changes when submitting a changeset, then others can easily see what’s been changed. Thanks.

This should probably be building=church rather than building=yes, I think?

amenity=place_of_worship#Buildings_and_open_areas

Nice one!

See maxheight=*#Non-numerical_values. The absence of a maxheight tag means that the maximum height is unknown; the presence of maxheight=default means that the maximum height is not specified, but has been checked to be enough for all normal traffic (i.e. lorries).

I’ll probably do the Lake District passes and valleys next. That’s probably got a bit more impact than doing something like the A5074.