Thanks for changing that

Thanks for the heads up - definitely a gate - not seen that. I'm away with only a phone so not going to fix it - feel free though in the mean time.

Right - good spot on the old map. I've dug out the photos I took of the area when I went and I really don't think its a ford - there is a significant drop down to the river. Much more likely a weir.

I've also got a photo of a map in the nearby Cladagh Glen Scout Centre (way/556871937) that shows the Ulster Way crossing the river here - though no specifics on how or date on the map. I think it may have been diverted away from here as part of https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/get-your-boots-on-the-ulster-way-is-back-on-the-map-28496605.html Though issues with the route where reported going back earlier: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1882208.stm

There are the photos - https://imgur.com/a/0nuGckb (from August 2021) - the water level in the river was defiantly quite high. But there was still a significant drop down. The gates where still in place though. I think its most likely the bridge has been removed and there is just no way to cross now (unless one has been added back since then?) but I suppose there could also be some type of removable structure?

Yeah I think abandoned:highway=* would be good - should make sure it dosn't get added back with aerial imagery.

Looks like Low-water crossing is the preferred name but I was using Irish Bridge to refer to a bridge which is explicitly designed to be submerged at levels of high water. bridge=*#Values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-water_crossing - looking back at the photo though even if such a thing was there there would be no reasonable way onto it.

Just noticed you have added a Weir at this location (way/1078408450/history) - is that was this is? Makes sense and must have been overflowing when I went - could delete this? Before I added this it was tagged as a bridge + track which was clearly wrong but I didn't know what it should be.

Yeah it is - thanks. Fixed in changeset/128016695

Fixing road order - source (local knowledge) & comment seemed to get lost.

Ok - might be worth having a look at traveline data? Thats open government licence bus the OSM wiki does still say a case by case basis, I can't find if anything has been done with it before but could be worth asking the data working group about it. Shame about TSY.

I've done the 88 at changeset/110396453 - I'll probably do the others later when I've got time to update them to PTV2

Hi,
This is about the change with traffic running one way along Pinstone Street and no longer being able to turn onto Furnival Gate right? If so I know from using them that some routes (81, 82, 88) are now running along Arundel Gate instead. Do you know if its the case for all of them? I'd be happy to move the ones I know to fix them if useful.

Hi Jez,
Thanks for letting me know, I'd clearly complely miss-understood when I saw the fences. That's a shame that its been left out of operation for so long. I've reverted them at: changeset/110396026

See: changeset/105186009

Hi Jorisbo, can I ask what the logic is for adding access=no on way/905552022. I know the route is an unclassified highway so normally they should be permitted, is there a TRO on it or some some other reason to block access? It would be strange to have bike = no but motor_vehicle = yes

See: changeset/105581786

I've checked my photo and yes I had copied the reference wrong. Thanks for letting me know Dan. Its been fixed in: changeset/105862445

Hi Dan,
To be honest it's probably more likely I just typed it wrong. I'll find the survey photo when I'm back from work this evening and check, thanks for letting me know.

Removed tag in: changeset/103292687

See comment at: changeset/99618977

Ahh - ok. Yes it is still shown relatively recently, but may have not been recorded for some reason.

Interesting, I might try and head up one evening to nab photos of the stiles/gaps, might be useful.

I've also sent a quick email to https://www.facebook.com/otleychevinorchardproject/ just to see if they have got any information on the routes usage.

Sorry - forgot a link for the library of Scotland site: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=17&lat=53.89598&lon=-1.70082&layers=6&right=osm

Ok, sorry I'm have a little bit of trouble understanding exactly what route you went along today. Hopefully you'll have seen the sign today (I've got a photo if not) but I don't think its impossible that it is more recent then August.

Yes the PROW over Chevin park are a complete mess, and especially in the forest section have no relation to the modern day paths. And that would here the boundaries of the park are not clear. I'm struggling to place it exactly based on the photo I happened to take.

Yeah, afraid I don't have much to give you with evidence of access either (only moved around ~6 months ago), and it isn't something I know too much about. I think them being proper sties could significantly help such a case. I also note that the southern of the 2 (OSM way/841053062) is shown on older maps in the library of Scotland archive as a public footpath if you use the side by side viewer it overlays almost exactly. It first appears (labelled FP) in the 1888-1913 survey.

The route also has a listing on the BHS research record with more historical maps: http://www.bhsaccess.org.uk/dobbin/pathdetails.php?id=northeast/2026Leeds&pathid=LEE-0008

That said I'm not sure exactly what I can offer but do get in touch if I can lend a hand in anyway. If you don't hear anything back from the walking groups I'll stick another sign to the private one asking if anyone used to use the route.

Hi,
Do you think this is better with the highway tag? The old Bridleway ford is not visible or passable at all today. It isn't possible to cross the river here apart from on the stepping stones, even though it is an official PROW it is in no way useable.

I've seen a few places elsewhere which had just the designation tag without the highway tag and thought that sounded reasonable. Examples:

way/299983292

way/238892290

way/304639980

way/356914963

way/356914956

Or maybe an abandoned:highway or disused:highway might be appropriate? That said I'm still not sure either of those are great as it isn't really visible.