Thanks for your edits today to Heysham golf course. They all look useful and correct, and your more detailed changeset comments make it easier to check the changes. Thanks for taking the time to work on this :)

No, it all looks good to me! Thanks for contributing :)

One thing to try out (if you’re not doing so already) is making sure that your satellite imagery is aligned with the ‘cadastral parcels’ data before editing. That provides a guaranteed source of truth about the correct alignment of things, since satellite imagery can be misaligned by a metre or two in some places (and it varies across the country, which is why it can’t be corrected automatically, frustratingly).

Open the ‘Background Settings’ pane on the right, enable the cadastral parcels layer, and then use the imagery offset arrows to align the satellite imagery with the blue parcel outlines. They typically line up with garden fences, field walls, etc. Some of them might not line up at all, but in an urban area there are typically enough things they do line up with to give you confidence the offset is right.

Doing the alignment means the buildings you draw should have exactly the right coordinates to match up with GPS readings in the future. Hope that makes sense :)

Although actually, looking at your subsequent edit it looks like you might have found this out for yourself already. Sorry for the noise

Hi, thanks for your edits to Ingleton! :) Just to note, you can press the ‘Q’ key in the editor, when a building is selected, to automatically square its corners. That’s an easy way of making it easier to draw neat buildings. Ta

Yeah, it’s easy to do that without noticing. Thanks for fixing :)

The change may be more obvious when viewing the changeset in achavi: http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=107636832

This node: node/7618502178#map=19/54.20587/-3.20938

Was the change to the cliff at the north end of Dunnerholme golf course accidental? It looks like an accidentally dragged node

That would be useful if it’s convenient for you. I’m fairly confident the details are correct (they’re from the database which ChargeMyStreet holds internally), but it would be good to have an additional check on them. Things to check would be:
- The location of the charge points relative to the building
- The charge point IDs (typically printed on a sticker with a QR code on the front or side of each charger) and whether I’ve got them the right way round
- The power of the chargers, which should be written somewhere — it should be 22kW, but might be 7kW
- Parking restrictions: is the parking accessible to everyone, for free? or with a charge? and do you have to pay for parking if you’re charging an electric vehicle?

Thanks :)

Hi. Once again, I’m reverting your latest edits as they introduce a lot of errors. You’re changing parking areas and golf clubhouses into office buildings, public beaches into golf bunkers, and a variety of things which aren’t cartpaths into cartpaths.

We’d love to help you contribute constructively to OpenStreetMap in the Furness area, but so far none of our messages seem to have got through to you.

I’m reporting your edits to the OpenStreetMap data working group, who will likely be in touch.

Hi, I’ve reverted this and your subsequent edit. As mentioned to you multiple times already, you shouldn’t tag for the renderer (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer), which appears to be what you are doing here. The beach was tagged correctly before as a beach. It’s not a golf bunker! Various other changes in this changeset and your subsequent one are also obviously not correct.

Please can you get in touch about your edits. I and other local mappers would love to help you out so you can contribute to OpenStreetMap in the Furness area. At the moment, though, you’re causing work for others to clean up after your edits. Thanks.

Reworked in changeset/107028107. I haven’t done the one near Rigg Lane since I can’t see it on satellite imagery (assuming I’m looking in the right place; I think I know the one you mean — in the woodland?)

What’s there is a cycle route, though. A legal route for bicycles, even if they have to dismount to do so.

A cycleway is the highest classification for this bridge (as it permits foot traffic and cycle traffic), so should be how it’s mapped: osm.wiki/Further_guidance_on_tagging_Public_Rights_of_Way_in_the_United_Kingdom#PRoW_runs_along_the_same_route_as_another_highway

Just because it’s narrow doesn’t mean it’s for feet only.

One complicating factor is that it seems the semantics of bicycle=dismount aren’t particularly concrete: bicycle=dismount, which means that using it in combination with highway=footway to indicate a designated cycle route might not be understood the intended way by various data consumers (or it might work fine, I don’t know). Using it in combination with highway=cycleway seems less ambiguous to me.

You obviously feel strongly about this, for some reason, so I’m not going to argue further or make further edits. I’ve made my points. Have a good weekend :)

I’m happy to discuss it, I went ahead with the changes because it seemed like you weren’t going to reply (given the speed of your original reply); obviously I was wrong about that. I have no intention to start an edit war. I am sorry if you thought I was shouting.

My argument is that this bridge is the route of NCN 71, so must by definition be a cycleway: https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/54.60368,-3.15547,16

I don’t think that means that cycles get priority, or that it gives them a right to ride over the bridge without dismounting. But I think those practical attributes should be tagged separately from the route’s legal status.

For example, the bollards could be mapped, and the fact that the bridge is not segregated for pedestrians and cyclists could be tagged with segregated=no.

I’ve changed it back to being a cycleway and I think the tagging is all correct now. Please jump in and improve on it if you think there’s more to do here. Thanks :)

I’ve got no idea either. It just seems like this is suspiciously close to the aqueduct and there’s no obvious reason for a measuring flume there (like, it’s not a big stream and it doesn’t flow into anything interesting) 🤷

It was already tagged as bicycle=dismount! I believe that, plus being tagged as a cycleway, is the correct tagging for a section of a cycleway where you have to temporarily dismount.

If it’s tagged as a footpath, bicycle routing engines won’t route bicycles over the bridge in the first place

Hi, what’s your reasoning for changing this to a footway? It’s part of the coast to coast cycle route.

Are you sure that’s a measuring flume near the car park? It might just be a channel to take the stream over the top of the Thirlmere aqueduct and reduce the chance of cross-contamination.

Hi, thanks for your recent edits around Keswick. I’ve reverted this one because the operator is already tagged on the pipeline relation, which this way is part of. :)