Definitely better to leave things disconnected if you’re not sure, since it’s a lot easier to connect them up again afterwards than to disentangle things which are already connected :)

One thing I find really useful for property boundaries is the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer. If you haven’t found it already, it’s under ‘Overlays’ in ‘Background Settings’ on the right.

Just message me if you have any questions about editing locally — happy to help out where I can. :)

I know the feeling! Apologies if I comment on this edit again later — it’ll probably take me a few days to check through it so I might come back with some queries (but hopefully not!).

Happy editing! :)

Heya, thanks for your edits in Sedbergh, it’s nice to see someone improving the map here :D

I guess you noticed my tweak to the naming of the schools — I hope that was OK. I’m local-ish (north Lancashire) but noticed the tagging was a bit non-standard.

Thanks for improving the outlines of the schools, it’s really useful to have that from local knowledge. I’ve just made one little tweak to snap the boundary of Settlebeck to a hedge where the hedge definitely forms the property boundary: changeset/132797986 — I hope that is correct?

Cheers :)

OK, for #2 I have tried to copy the access permissions from surrounding paths to the bridges from this changeset.

My changes are here: changeset/132797868

It would be great if you could take a look and double-check what I’ve done!

Hi, just getting around to checking over this changeset, and I have a couple of quick questions:

1. way/1137223728 is tagged as designation=public_footpath but foot=private — what’s going on there?

2. Some bridges (like way/573729981) have been missed out of the edit, so they now have different access data to the path on both sides. You can visualise the missing bridges as gaps in the highlighted paths on https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=131998262&relations=true.

3. Not sure deleting way/568900827 (track to Dungeon Ghyll just north of Rossett house) and the bridge it connects to (over Dungeon Ghyll) is the best approach — now the bridge is unmapped. Perhaps would have been better to tag it as access=private, unless the track and the bridge don’t exist at all any more?

Thanks again for all your work on this. I appreciate it’s a lot of work cross-checking all this against the National Trust GIS records, and it must be exhausting to make sure that nothing is missed. It’s great that it’s being done! :D

Hiya, thanks for your continuing work on updating path data from the National Trust.

Could you please consider splitting your edits up a bit? Other OSM contributors might be interested in checking the changes, and modifying 274 paths in one changeset makes that quite hard!

For example, this edit could have been roughly split into: Blea Tarn, Little Langdale, Holme Ground, Wetherlam/Swirl How, Monk Coniston, Coniston Village, Coniston Hall, Hoathwaite, Torver.

If the changes are split up a bit more then any discussions about possible queries/typos/irregularities in the changes are a bit easier to keep track of.

Thanks!

What kind of errors in the OSM database do you have in mind?

Once a building stops being a train station, it doesn’t stop *looking* like a train station unless it undergoes major, major alterations. People will still look at it and think “that looks like a train station”. That means it’s still useful to somehow tag it as looking like a train station.

Arnside in particular, still looks like a train station. I can’t speak for the other two buildings here.

I’d rather stick to the specifics of these three buildings than go into hypotheticals about glass churches, but if you want to: the high-heel wedding church is apparently a wedding backdrop and not a consecrated church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Heel_Wedding_Church#Events) and hence potentially wouldn’t be tagged as building=church anyway. That does raise some interesting questions about what architecture qualifies a building to “look like a church” and how that varies around the world, but I don’t think that would impact on the discussion of train stations.

The wiki is pretty clear about building:use, and there are about 700k uses of it: building:use=*

aiui the process for changing such a commonly used tag is to propose to deprecate that tagging, rather than to unilaterally remove it from the map.

Why revert this?

No worries, there’s a lot to pick up when you start mapping. Thanks for what you’ve done! Message me if you have any mapping questions; I’m local to the area :)

Hey, thanks for the reply, and thanks for checking back on your edits and tweaking things. :)

Note that using Google Street View is unfortunately not allowed as a source for OSM edits, because of licensing/copyright reasons. Doing an in-person survey or using freely-licensed sources such as geograph (https://www.geograph.org.uk/browser/#!/display=map) is what we have to do instead.

There’s a bit more information on Google’s licensing here: osm.wiki/Google

It’s frustrating, but that’s the legal reality! If Google content is used in OSM, OSM would potentially become subject to Google’s licensing fees, which we don’t want.

Hope that makes sense, but please don’t let it discourage you from editing :)

Hiya, did you know you can press the ‘Q’ key when a building is selected to automatically square its corners? It makes adding regular buildings very easy.

Thanks for your edits in the north west :)

Hiya, are you sure this is a footpath? It’s got cycling/footway signs at both ends and is on the campus map as a cycle route: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/maps/campus-map.pdf

What was your reasoning for making the change? Is it that the path isn’t segregated between cyclists and pedestrians?

Ta

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your contributions!

If you could write more descriptive changeset comments, that would help others out who are editing and checking the map. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for some tips.

Thanks!

I went ahead and made those changes in changeset/132023172

Heya, probably simplest just to do a bit of research (either a local survey or looking at the museum/shop website) and do another edit to separate out the tagging a bit more based on what the research says.

My guess would be that the area should be the museum, with most of the address and name tagging on it, and the shop should be the node inside (with less of the general tagging on it because that’s covered by the surrounding area already). But I’m not local, so that’s just an armchair guess! :)

Hi, are you sure about the edits to the RNLI museum and shop? The tagging of the area and the node now looks confusing: both are tagged as museums; and while the node is also tagged as a shop, it has alt_name= and designation= which imply it’s a museum.

Thanks for clarifying!

I’ve re-added the node and its address data in changeset/131846447, but left it tagged as closed for now. It’ll be fairly easy to mark it as open again when it does reopen.

Thanks!

Hi, the website for the Flying Fleece says they’re temporarily closed until 3rd February (https://www.theflyingfleece.co.uk/). Are they actually going to be closed for longer.

Not sure a temporary closure of the pub warrants completely deleting it from the map!

Hiya, what was your rationale for making this change?

It looks like building= and building:use= were being used correctly on all these buildings, and this changeset makes them incorrect.

I know Arnside station well, and it was correctly tagged as a station building which is now in use as an office, as per building:use=*.

The other two buildings look similar, but I do not know them myself.

Was there something wrong with that tagging that I’ve missed? Thanks

It’s building=station because it was built as a station (and is still recognisable as that style/layout of building), building:use=office because that’s how it’s now used, and disused:railway=station is inappropriate because the station as a whole is still in use