Hi there,

I just tried to see what the issue was following your link, but the second address was invalid. Am I correct in thinking that it was from ~61 Powke Ln to ~15 Alwin Rd? If that is the case, then I can't understand what the issue is? For walking, it routes via Duke St, then down a public footpath that appears to still be open, which is the most direct route. For car navigation, it routes via the 3rd left, then 1st left, to the same destination.

For Waterfall Ln Bridge, I can see that the part of the footpath I mapped is tagged as a bridge, as is standard practice for when a footpath passes over a bridge. When initially mapping the walking route, I only mapped the footpaths/sidewalks that the route would have used as it would have been too time consuming to map every sidewalk in the vicinity, I however did map a short section of footpath/sidewalk with no relation added at nodes where the path diverged to decrease the linkeness of a new mapper extending the footpath undert the relation in the wrong direction. Recently, I've been mapping sidewalks and footpaths separately to the roads they run alongside (as can be seen here: osm.org/#map=19/52.518804/-2.009531

I don't think I realised that the trail was meant to be split when I originally mapped it, as that is the case, it might be a good idea to split the route into two. I agree with your point here, though the connection does seem incorrect.

Whilst the route is old, the sites along it are all still in place as far as I am aware, so someone would easily be able to still complete it, which would be a good reason to keep it?

Thank you so much for getting back to me. I appreciate your response. :)

For clarification, I verified that the relation was ordered in the correct order using this tool: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=18664600&type=relation

Thank you for bringing this to my attention- I would like to get some clarification regarding your comments.

I'm unsure what you mean by "the added paths conflict with existing pathways connected to the existing roads". I've taken a look at the mapped relation, and it all appears to be ordered in the correct directions. The majoroty of the route is mapped along sidewalks and footpaths that have no individual oneway=* tag; in some parts the route follows along roadways which have no oneway=* tag either; the one exception is a one way road near to Warrens Hall Riding School that flows in the opposire direction ot the trail- in this instance the member relation is reversed but this should not impact routing issues. Places where the trail crosses roads have been tagged with a marked/unmarked crossing node, as is best practice, but those individual nodes are not part of the trail relation. Where along the route are you referring to, and what impacts on routing have you experienced?

In reference to the creation of "non-existent bridges", I have checked along the mapped route and can't find what you may have been referring to. Any members along the trail with the bridge tag are, in fact, bridges (such as where the trail passes over a canal). Please could you respond with some clarification as to where these bridges are?

I understand your concern regarding whether or not this trail should have been mapped or not. In my opinion, as it met one of the criteria for suitability for inclusion on the map as stated on the OSM wiki ( osm.wiki/Walking_Routes#Tagging_walking_and_hiking_route_networks ) then it was correct to map it- specifically that it is "documented by an organisation [sandwell council] that is responsible for this function [encouraging and facilitating active travel to improve the health and well-being of its residents]". Although no exact trail is present on the PDF document, points have been numbered so a route was inferred by me that connected the points in a sequential order.

I hope this provides some clarification regarding why the trail was mapped.

Places where the roads have been mapped as split are only done so when features exist between the carriageways, such as bollards on either side of pedestrian crossing points. All of the roads in this area have correct turn restrictions for the accurate interpretation by navigational software.

My apologies, this would've been done by mistake. Thank you for fixing it! :)

Hello, I believe I have corrected all of the mistakes now. Thank you for pointing it out. I've now turned on the spell checker on my browser. :)

It was assumed to be Lea Brook based on historical OS maps that show it passes here.

The bowling green pavilion is proposed/under construction as part of the BCLM's forging ahead programme. The location of the pavilion can be found here: http://planningdocuments.dudley.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00491562.pdf