No, I don’t agree with the removal of those. For better or worse, there is a legal right of way for all traffic (pedestrians, bikes, cars, etc.) on this route, and the tagging for that is *=designated.

It really is the case that this route is explicitly designated for use by cyclists (and others).

If there’s a problem with cyclestreets.net picking up and recommending these routes to people, then perhaps there’s another tag it could factor into its decisions which could discourage that?

(I’ve fixed the tagging in changeset changeset/93592748)

Hi, thanks for your detailed edits to WGC on OpenStreetMap :)

Tagging the car park as golf=cartpath is incorrect tagging (it’s a car park, not a cart path) and an example of osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer which we try to avoid. While it potentially makes the rendered map look nicer, it makes the underlying map data inconsistent and confusing, and OpenStreetMap data is used in many more contexts than just the static rendered map.

Thanks, and happy editing :)

Fixed in changeset/93591577

The Cross-Bay walk is, as I understand it, legally a byway open to all traffic, which means that bicycle=designated motor_vehicle=designated is the appropriate tagging, as those tags refer to the legal status of the byway, rather than any practical/feasibility considerations. If we’re looking at practicability/feasibility/safety, the whole thing shouldn’t even be marked as a footpath, as it’s quite hazardous without a guide.

Hi, just checking: is Derwent Folds really height=1, i.e. a building which is 1m tall?

It’s been a long time coming!

Note that I haven’t updated any of the temporary parking or construction compounds, as I don’t know the status of those. This was just an update from the media reports, rather than a survey :)

Fixed in changeset/92835302 ta

There’s 3500 uses of lanes=1.5 in OSM (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=lanes&value=1.5), so data consumers *should* have to deal with it.

How about lanes=1 width=1 source:width=estimated lane_markings=no?

Hi, what’s the reasoning for changing lanes=1.5 to lanes=3 on the roads around Sedgwick in this changeset? They’re country lanes with pretty limited passing space. :)

I agree, it does manage to distinguish the clearcut area from the remaining forest. I think that’s all coming from the natural=scrub tag, though, and not man_made=clearcut. See the wiki discussion for a link to the carto discussion where they rejected rendering changes for man_made=clearcut (wrongly, I think).

One other thing to think about might be to turn the remaining wood into a multipolygon and add the clearcut area as a hole in it. That would make it render purely as natural=scrub, without the mixture of tree and grass symbols in carto. Don’t know if that’s the right thing to do or not.

What do you think about using man_made=clearcut for the recently-logged areas, if they still have tree stumps in place? See the discussion page on the wiki though — there’s some controversy, and it seems that people prefer combining man_made=clearcut with (e.g.) natural=scrub to better describe what the clearcut area has become. What do you think? :)

Hi, what’s the thinking behind this change? As I understand it, these are docks (enclosed, water level can be controlled), not generic bits of water. Has that changed?

I made those changes in changeset/91469770, please let me know if there are any problems

Thanks a lot :)

Hi, FYI I’m reverting this because it’s wrong. The satellite imagery is out of date and shows the construction site which was present before the house which you deleted was built.

Hi, this edit doesn’t look correct based on my memory of the area; I think this is a private driveway. But I could be misremembering. What sources is this edit based on? :)

Hi, in this edit and your other one on Shakespeare Street, you deleted all the information about house numbers and addresses which is quite valuable and hard to collect (it requires an in-person survey). Would you please consider reverting your changes, or updating them to keep the splits between houses and tagging that was there previously. Thanks.

Hi, thanks for your edits. Did you know you can press the ‘Q’ key when a building (or other area) is selected in the editor to automatically square up its corners? It makes drawing regular buildings easier. :)

There’s a reference for the height= tag here: height=*. Elevation should be tagged as ele= (see ele=*).