That would be great. Good luck!

Sorry, I’m quite confused by this. Where’s the factory? On the satellite imagery I only see hospital buildings and a new housing development.

There’s a really strong trace on Strava heatmap for this cycle path: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#16.91/-2.98012/53.63338/hot/ride

(I’m not local, just interested in this change because its large bounding box made it pop up on my update feed. So I can’t check it in person.)

I’ve changed it to width=2 in changeset/127771838, since I guess width=0 was an accident. Please say if you disagree!

Hi, can you please use more descriptive changeset comments than just ‘edit’? Doing so allows others to easily see what’s changed in the map — and why.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information

Thanks

Yeah, because of the legal complexities of access rights in the UK, representing it all in OSM and ID can be a bit tricky at times!

There are a few wiki pages which cover specific tagging for the UK, which you might find helpful if you haven‘t found them already:
- osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom
- designation=*

I’m happy to help out with any questions you might have that aren’t covered by those wiki pages — just drop me a message.

Thanks for all your edits around the area recently. You’ve been busy!

Hiya. I think some of the changes from track/driveway to footpath here aren’t quite tagged right. In particular, changing way/315088626 from a driveway to a footpath loses information about the fact that vehicles can travel along it.

Are you aware of the designation= tag which can be used to tag the legal status of a footpath/bridleway, separately from how the appearance/construction/surface of it is tagged?

In this case I would have tagged the driveway as:
highway=service
service=driveway
access=private
designation=public_footpath
foot=designated

The access=private sets the default access, and then foot=designated overrides that for foot traffic. designation=public_footpath indicates the legal status of the route. highway=service, service=driveway indicates the type of construction of the route.

Does that fit with what’s on the ground here? It seems to match the satellite imagery. :)

How is the path blocked? Is it permanently blocked and the path has been removed or un-designated? Satellite imagery is showing it as a very large constructed path along the beck. Is that correct?

Hi, did you mean to set the width of the cycleway to zero? From memory it’s more like 1.5-2m wide along this stretch. Is width=0 supposed to mean something special? Ta :)

Heya, is this the officially recommended tagging for lime kilns now? What I’ve found on the wiki seems a little unclear, and seems to suggest either historic=archaeological_site, site_type=lime_kiln or man_made=kiln, historic=yes, product=lime instead.

Hi. I’ve removed this footpath way because it’s not necessary: the road way is already correctly tagged as being a public footpath, and there’s not a physically separate footpath apart from the road (as far as I know — please correct me if I’m wrong).

The foot=designated and designation=public_footpath tags on the road mean there’s a footpath right of way along it.

See designation=public_footpath for information

Thanks for your edits!

Hi, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

You can add more than one static caravan per edit. Doing so, and providing a descriptive comment for your changeset, will help others in reviewing your work and understanding what changes have been made and why.

Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks, and happy editing!

Nice one, thanks!

Hiya. The relation you edited is for the World Heritage Convention zone for the Lake District, not the national park relation.

Would your name changes be better on the national park relation? relation/287917 That‘s what people normally are referring to when they say “the Lake District”.

What do you think?

Since it’s been 2 weeks since your last edit to this golf course, I’ve gone ahead and removed the temporary aligning features in changeset/125651187

Hi, are you done with the game-specific edits from this changeset (and changesets 125082608 and 125069516) yet? Thanks

Great! Hope you enjoy the rest of your time in the area, and good work on the surveying! :)

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 :)