Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s good to know you’ve been surveying this area in person!

My worry is that armchair mappers will add the removed paths back in at some point in the future.

Perhaps it would mitigate this risk to retag the paths from highway=path to razed:highway=path, rather than deleting them, if they correspond to something visible on satellite imagery. The use of the lifecycle prefix[1] should hopefully stop armchair mappers from re-adding them.

It might also help to explicitly mention the deletions, and brief reasoning for them, in the changeset description so that other mappers can refer to it in future.

What do you think?

[1]: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Hi, what’s the reasoning for deleting all these paths? The ones near Lingstone Beck, for example, are quite visible on satellite imagery.

aha, that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up and thanks for verifying your changes.

I didn’t notice that the Megabus route was causing the large bounding box, as neither of the changeset viewers I know (osmcha and achavi) successfully load geographically large changesets. I will try and notice that kind of thing in future.

I hope you can appreciate how a changeset with a large extent, vague comment and large number of resolved iD issues looks to a reviewer though.

Cheers :)

Hi, did you really verify all these changes? There are hundreds of them here, spanning most of the UK. Making changesets like this makes it almost impossible for others to check your changes, and providing a vague changeset comment like “Fix minor errors” doesn’t shed any light on things.

Could you please make your changesets smaller in future, so that local mappers stand a chance of being able to check and understand the changes?

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks :)

For anyone following along, please see the discussion on changeset/124420794

Hi Richard, I’m not sure what you say is actually true: the way here has explicit foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes and motor_vehicle=no tagging. So the tagging defaults from highway=bridleway or highway=track are already being overridden.

OK, I added it in changeset/124397243. :)

I see your point about permissive paths not being a legal designation, I’ve seen many paths where foot=permissive is used inappropriately. I hope that adding designation=permissive_footpath would make it clearer that this is actually an infrastructured permissive path and the tagging is correct.

Great, thanks for clearing that up :)

Hi, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Just checking (because 6.6 tonnes is an unusual weight, and it doesn’t match your changeset comment), did you mean to set the *weight* limit or the *width* limit for this bridge?

Thanks!

(For anyone reviewing this changeset: I’ve checked that the changes in the north-west are OK. I have not checked the south-east.)

Hi. Please try and keep the geographical size of your changesets to something a bit smaller than the whole of England in future. Almost all of your changes here are in the south-east, apart from Isel Hall — that could have been a separate changeset.

Large changeset areas are hard for other contributors to check, and end up notifying a lot of people. See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks!

Should it be tagged as designation=permissive_footpath then, as per designation=*#Permissive_Paths? Or do you mean ‘permissive’ in some other sense? :)

Hi, if you’re going to tag things as landuse=meadow rather than landuse=farmland, can you please clarify the tagging by adding meadow=pasture to make it clear that these aren’t actual wildflower meadows. There are vanishingly few actual meadows in the north west, and it’s useful to be able to distinguish them from the very common pasture farmland here. Thanks :)

Nice work!

Hi, please consider adding more descriptive changeset comments than just “edit”. Doing so helps other local mappers quickly see how your edits aim to change on the map. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

Hi, are you sure that Knights of Middle England is a swimming pool? Their website seems to be exclusively about jousting.

Hi, thanks for editing OSM! Please consider writing more explanatory changeset comments when you edit: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks!

I’ve made some changes in changeset/123091294, see what you think

No worries, you seem to be going about things the right way in marking edits as needing review, and being open to discussion :)

The restriction about not being able to stay year-round at Westmorland Caravans is an interesting one. I think it’s probably still best to tag the area as landuse=residential, since I’m assuming people’s use/ownership of a static caravan/plot there is typically measured in years, rather than a single weekend as it is in the Caravan Club site. But the note you’ve added about it not being open year-round is a good addition for clarifying things. I’ll edit the land back to landuse=residential.

If you want to edit the map to add Woodlands Hotel and Pine Lodges, please do go ahead :) But bear in mind that you cannot use Google Maps as a source of information — only use information from your own in-person surveys or freely-licensed sources. The problem with using Google Maps information is that Google then has a copyright claim (essentially, part ownership) over part of the OpenStreetMap database, and they could use that copyright claim to restrict distribution of OSM.

There’s some more information about licensing here, if it’s a topic you’d like to read more about: osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data?

Update for anyone else reading this later: the change was reverted as changeset/123088018

Thanks