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.

I've removed the comment in: changeset/100657670

This changeset is in follow-up to discussion at: changeset/100594287

I'll defer to you - I only got as far as the wall with the private keep out sign (eastern end - node/7633403455) - and could only see one route continuing into the woods. I thought based on the heading it was the more Northerly of the 2 but may have been wrong.

Incidentally the private keep out sign looked quite new, how long has it been there? If these routes have existed for some time might be worth a DMMO for public footpath to keep public access?

Hi Paul, did you mean to add this with a public_transport:version=2 tag? Looks to a little sort of between 1 and 2 to me? Its mostly 2 but you've still get the forward/backwards roles which are not valid under V2: osm.wiki/Buses#Adding_streets_to_the_relation

Sorry I've got this wrong, its signed as "5 Tons". Should it be "5 lt" based on osm.wiki/Map_features/Units#Explicit_specifications? Looks like without a unit maxweight=*?uselang=en Tonnes is the default? Although this whole Ton/Tonnes ect. is rather confusing!

Source should be Ariel Imagery - not GPS

No worries, I've left the Common Garden Street stops as you put them, nice spot on them being incorrect. Not at all.