Fixed in changeset/131426074, thanks!

Hi, are you sure that motor_vehicle=private is correct for way/23910293? As I understand it (I haven’t visited for a few months) that’s the only access road for the caravan site.

If that’s correct, should it be motor_vehicle=customers instead?

Hiya, are you sure about access=no on way/608945404? That means nobody can access the track, not even the owner.

Hi, are you sure this is correct? This adds a load of cycleways to the A590 which I don’t believe exist — at least last time I went along the A590, the area just off the solid white line of the carriageway is a (narrow) hard shoulder, not a cycleway.

Has a cycleway been added in the last month or two?

Thanks

Hi, how did you measure the position of the summit? Is this edit just based on looking at the default satellite imagery, or is it based on GPS measurements?

Satellite imagery can be (and is) misaligned in places and can’t be relied on for accurate positioning of things to nearer than about 2m.

See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Align_aerial_imagery_before_tracing

I think I’ve sorted things out correctly in changeset/131328751 so that the stile is marked, and the footpath joins into the path further east.

Please tweak my edit or say if anything looks wrong!

Hi! Note that when adding buildings, there’s a handy tool for squaring up their corners easily: select the building and press ‘Q’. Helps to keep things regular :)

Hiya, thanks for your edits around Milnthorpe!

These paths look fine to add. Are they actually private, or is there a presumed right of access because they are the access to a group of houses’ front doors?

Paths in OSM can be suitable for pedestrian use without being a designated Public Footpath — just tag them as foot=yes (rather than foot=designated).

foot=private is best reserved for a path which is entirely on someone’s private land (such as the path to their front door, or a path in a large private garden). Typically that kind of thing isn’t mapped, but sometimes they’re so obvious on the ground that mapping them makes sense.

Which situation do you think applies best here?

Thanks!

For anyone else following along, the fixes have been made as changeset/131136096

For anyone who looks at this in future, it’s a fixup to some minor issues in changeset/131113820

Hi, thanks for this and, more generally, for the work the NT is doing on OSM :)

Two things I noticed while checking this over:

1. way/150945859 is tagged as designation=public_footpath, but foot=permissive. That seems slightly contradictory — should it be foot=designated for a designated PRoW? It appears on MapThePaths as PRoW ‘1-30 2’.

2. way/28732076 has been changed to a track. Should it have access=private to indicate that vehicle access is private, or is it a public right of way for vehicles too? I’m not familiar with the track myself so can’t just dive in and tweak it. :)

Thanks!

Super, thanks for the fast response, and thanks to you and the National Trust for doing this initiative :)

Hiya, thanks for these changes!

There are a few ways in the changeset (e.g. way/121597338) where designation=public_footpath has been changed to designation=public_path.

I don’t think designation=public_path is valid — it’s not listed on designation=* or osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths.

Was that intentional, or an accident?

Cheers!

Hi, thanks for your reply.

There is a real path, I’ve been up it, Wainwright has been up it, and a reasonable number of people on Strava have been up it (https://www.strava.com/heatmap#15.84/-3.21492/54.62813/hot/run). It’s not a path which is suitable for everyone, but it is definitely a real path, mentioned in real guidebooks and used by people.

It is marked on OSM as a path which requires “Exposed and demanding terrain. May include steep rock scrambles” (see sac_scale=*). That seems appropriate to me.

It is not the fault of the data in OSM if certain renderings of that data do not appropriately take the sac_scale tag into account.

osm-carto (what you see on this website) has problems with that, which need to be fixed: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1500

AllTrails and potentially other walking apps also have similar issues.

But all of those issues are not problems with the underlying data in OSM.

If the path were to be deleted from OSM, it would likely just be re-added in future by someone else who has used it (probably someone who wonders why one of Wainwright’s routes is not in OSM), and the whole problem would start again.

I hope that helps explain my reasoning.

Hi, I have reverted this change because the path does exist (it’s described in Wainwright’s guidebooks), and it was tagged correctly as sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking.

The fact that AllTrails does not correctly highlight the sac_scale difficulty of the path is a problem with AllTrails, not OpenStreetMap.

Heya. Thanks for the speedy reply.

I’ve just used http://revert.osmz.ru/ to revert your changes in their entirety, and have manually re-applied the changes to the path and landuse areas.

Hopefully I didn’t miss anything! Please dive in and tweak things if I have messed up.

The changesets I’ve done are:
- changeset/130964659
- changeset/130964743

If you live locally, and want to easily map the house numbers and other detail on the estate, you might want to look at the StreetComplete app (https://streetcomplete.app/) which makes that pretty easy. I’m the other end of the county and have done my edits from aerial imagery and memory from visits, so unfortunately can’t add detail like that. :)

Hi, thanks for your edits around Cockermouth. Have those fence boundaries changed since the houses were constructed?

I’m using the newer imagery at https://ecn.t{switch:0,1,2,3}.tiles.virtualearth.net/tiles/a{u}.jpeg?g=587&n=z and aligning it to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels (since not all aerial imagery is correctly aligned). It shows the boundaries as they were mapped before your edit, and also the buildings not rotated.

Hi, please don’t delete this path. It’s listed in Wainwright’s guidebooks and has a fairly strong trace on Strava heatmap.

Just because it’s listed in a mountain rescue callout doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be on the map.

It’s correctly tagged with sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking.

The problem with that mountain rescue callout was that AllTrails doesn’t indicate the sac_scale of a path to the user. That is a problem with AllTrails, not OSM.

Deleting the path will not fix the problem with AllTrails (there are likely other paths in the Lakes which could cause mountain rescue callouts like this), and it will likely be added back in future by someone who wonders why the path in their guidebook isn’t on OSM.

I’m going to revert this changeset. The path exists.

It’s for mapping the canal corridor: the land beside a canal which is associated with it. The tag is analogous to landuse=railway and landuse=highway.

While it’s not rendered by the default renderer, it can be useful for calculating land area used by canals, or similar GIS tasks

Deleting the path off the map is not the solution to some people getting cragfast on it. It is a valid path, and is tagged appropriately with sac_scale to indicate its difficulty.

The appropriate fix is to ensure that consumers of OSM data correctly render sac_scale.

For carto, that means helping fix https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1500

For other mapping apps, that means filing bug reports with them to ensure they render difficult sac_scale paths with appropriate warnings.