Nice work. Did you mean to move the rubbish bin from Ullswater Road?

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your recent edits around Parlick. Note that when you have an area selected in the editor, you can press the ‘s’ key to automatically square up its corners. It’s a particularly easy way of drawing regular buildings. Have fun :-)

Hi, your change of Pikestol Lane to Pikestone Lane caused some OSLMC validation errors:
- https://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=589481
- https://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=589482

Would you be able to double check this? My guess is that Pikestone Lane is the correct name, and OSLMC is wrong, but I don’t know what you saw on the ground. The not:name tag is the right way to silence these warnings if they are incorrect.

Ta!

Oops, I missed that bit. Thanks for the fix.

Hey, thanks for replying. It seems like this is a bug in maps.me over-zealously making the same changes. Is your offline map data up to date in the app?

Why revert the change to make the website link HTTPS? The HTTPS version of the website loads fine for me.

Hi, thanks for editing OSM. What’s your source for the name of this tarn? I’ve never heard it had a name before. Thanks.

I see you’ve added the addr:housenumber back again in changeset/68830140. Would you be able to explain your reasoning for this? Have I misunderstood the tagging scheme? Thanks.

Hi, thanks for your recent edits to Grange! Just a note to say that adding names which duplicate the tagging of an area is unnecessary — these areas are already tagged as a football pitch and tennis courts, so don’t need that information duplicated in the name. Ta.

Hi, thanks for adding to OSM. There’s no need to add addr:housenumber to this pet shop, as the unit is tagged using the addr:unit tag, which is more specific. I’ve tweaked it in this edit: changeset/68815334.

🥳

I was updating the existing tagging, but you’re right; that would be a better way of doing things. Done in changeset/68135631.

Hi, thanks for your edits! Would it be more appropriate to tag these residential blocks as something like:
building=apartments
amenity=student_accommodation
addr:housename=Damson
addr:housenumber=79

Then both the house number and name are machine-readable, and it’s clear that this is purpose-built student accommodation.

See:
- osm.wiki/Proposed_features/amenity%3Dstudent_accommodation
- addr=*

While you’re there, maybe you could also map building:levels and building:flats to give an idea of the size of the building? See:
- building:flats=*
- building:levels=*

Thanks!

I wondered if that was the case, but was planning to leave resurveying it until once the construction work’s complete. Thanks for the update! :-)

Nice one.

Hi. I’ve reverted this edit (here: changeset/67879030) because it’s not actually necessary — this footpath is already part of the Dales Way relation (which describes the entire route), which you can see here: relation/29302

Thanks!

According to the wiki, building=residential is a general purpose tag which people should consider refining where possible (building=residential).

That said, were these originally built as semis and then all converted to flats, or were they originally built as flats? If they were originally built as semis, then I guess they should be building=house (with one area per semi), and building:use=apartments. Since building= is supposed to tag the original use of the building, rather than its current use.

Assuming they were originally built as flats, I’d go with building=apartments, building:levels=2 (or whatever it is) to indicate that they’re not tower blocks, and an addr:flats= key on each entrance, showing that they’re single entrances. Though I don’t know if you recorded that much detail in your survey!

🤷

Are these flats? If so, I guess building=apartments, plus building:flags= and addr:flats= might be more appropriate?

Hey, the location looks good to me (you can search OpenStreetMap using coordinates; just paste them into the search box). I’ve tweaked the tagging slightly in this changeset: changeset/67759817, since there’s an agreed tag for large, notable boulders.

Hey, why did you delete the highway=give_way at the junction? Have the road priorities changed? Thanks.