The correct position relative to what map/coordinate system/imagery?

Hi! The trig pillar has a note attached to it:

“Accurate location import for imagery offset calibration. Please do not move.”

Just checking, but were you aware of this and its implications? Are you using offset imagery, or the default satellite imagery alignment in iD?

Thanks

Morning :) I suggest going with width=5' and surface=unpaved to start with.

If you know the surface more accurately then you could use that rather than ‘unpaved’. There are some recognised values listed just above here: surface=*#Surface_for_motor_roads. Similarly if the surface differs along the road, split it into multiple sections and vary the surface= tagging between them.

You might also want to use smoothness=very_bad (or another value from smoothness=*) if that seems relevant.

Similarly, maxspeed:practical=* may also be useful.

Adding those tags together, I suspect that will cause satnavs to not use the roads.

I hope that makes sense, happy to discuss further if anything’s unclear or if I’ve got anything wrong :)

Heya, are you sure this is correct? As I understand it, these are unclassified roads, so there is a legal right of vehicle access, and they should be motor_vehicle=yes not motor_vehicle=private.

What makes them unsuitable for being routed down by a sat nav? Are they too narrow, missing passing places, poorly surfaced, etc.? If so, it would be better to add tags for that information, so the sat navs can make more informed routing decisions.

Oops, it’s a typo. I started typing farmland=pasture and evidently the tab completion didn’t work and I didn’t notice. Thanks for pointing it out.

Fixed in changeset/130065497

That sounds like it would be a good improvement to the map, thanks for taking the time to do so :)

I think I replied before seeing your latest reply. Yeah, from my point of view I don’t think they (or the similar names on other relations) add anything to the map that isn’t already given by the ref= tag. 🤷

But what value does it add to the map?

Hi, I’m not sure this is a useful change. From spot-checking a few of them, the ref is already tagged separately on these relations, and the country can be determined by spatial data.

See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

What was your reasoning for adding descriptive names to these relations?

Thanks

Thanks for clarifying

If you’re going to automatically resolve validator warnings, can you please constrain the edits to a small geographical area? Nobody is going to be able to review this changeset.

osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Can you please also say *what* validator warnings you are fixing in your changeset description, otherwise it’s hard to work out whether particular changes are intentional or not.

Thanks

Hiya, thanks for adding some detail to the Bay Cycle Way.

I’ve removed ‘NCN700’ from the name, though, as it’s already tagged using the ref= and network= tags, and there are tagging guidelines about the name being the name only: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

My changes are here: changeset/129604559

Cheers :)

Hi, I think the same comments as in changeset/129527914#c950706 apply here.

This changeset appears to delete pedestrian crossing information and replace it with traffic signal information. Both need to be present.

Please can you read the wiki? highway=traffic_signals#Traffic_signals_for_pedestrians

This doesn’t revert changeset/129273331, but it does change the classifications of several of those roads again.

Market Place back to the crossroads on Main Street are now tertiary, as the street is quite wide and well surfaced, and does take some through traffic. It’s not a B-road, though, so isn’t secondary.

Saint Helens Street is back to being unclassified, as it’s a small mostly residential road which takes a little bit of through traffic to/from the east. It doesn’t have a B or C classification.

Kirkgate is now tertiary for the same reasons as Main Street/Market Place.

Station Road is now a secondary road (it was tertiary) because it’s the B5293.

Lorton Street is back to being a secondary road (it’s the B5292).

See osm.wiki/Highway:International_equivalence for the conventions behind this.

I’ve changed the classifications a bit in changeset/129471578

It would be great if everyone who used OSM was also a skilled geologist, but that’s not the case and having a volcano marked on the map is going to make most people expect to see a big crater or caldera.

See natural=volcano#Tags_to_use_in_combination which explicitly says that unverifiable volcanos shouldn’t be mapped.

There’s no need to be rude :)

Hi again, last changeset I’m going to message on! You’ve dived in a bit at the deep end with some of your changes in Cockermouth, in terms of the subtleties of correct tagging of data, hence the messages.

What was the prompt for changing the primary/secondary/tertiary nature of some of these roads?

The standard tagging in the UK is to use highway=trunk for A-roads with green signs, highway=primary for A-roads with black/white signs, highway=secondary for B-roads and highway=tertiary for C-roads and major streets in towns.

You can find the guidelines here (scroll down the table to the UK entry): osm.wiki/Highway:International_equivalence

Some of these changes don’t match those guidelines. Have the road classifications changed in Cockermouth, or were you trying to affect traffic routing around town based on local knowledge about where people normally drive, or something like that?

Sorry for all the questions. With road tagging – particularly major road tagging – it’s important to get the tagging right, as the data in OpenStreetMap is used by a number of vendors for things like delivery routing, satnav directions, town planning, etc. It’s not just used to create the map image you see on openstreetmap.org!

Thanks, that makes sense. I’ve added the motor_vehicle=destination tagging in changeset/129283070, to correspond to the signage.

That tagging indicates that the road is open to residents, but not open to through traffic, which sounds correct from your description.

Cheers

Hi again, a quick question about this edit: is Rubbybanks Road open to through traffic? Hopefully you know the answer, since you seem to be local. If not, no worries :)

From satellite imagery (I’m not local to Cockermouth) it looks like it’s too small and should probably only be open to destination traffic. If so, it should be tagged as motor_vehicle=destination. Otherwise satnavs might try and route cars from South Street to New Road along it.

The signs indicating this kind of access restriction are https://startsafety.uk/image/catalog/product-photos/signs/post-mount/supplementary/xsupplementary-sign-except-for-access-inline.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gLJ8jk0Yrx.webp

Thanks!

Thanks for your fast reply!

In that case, I’ve re-added the path, but marked it as destroyed, in changeset/129281766. Re-adding the line of the path will prevent others from erroneously re-adding it in future from the footpath data.

Happy editing :)