Same here (Morwenstow FP 12) too: osm.org/way/1054841757/history

Hi,

In this changeset you removed the public footpath tagging of Morwenstow FP 7 osm.org/way/1138336312/history

Was this intentional? I appreciate the path deviates slightly from the local authority's PRoW data but it seems this is likely the "on-the-ground" route.

Thanks.

Source: cornwall_council_prow_gis_data

Source: cornwall_council_prow_gis_data

Hi,
With regard to osm.org/node/6478931096 I would recommend using the historic=battlefield tagging scheme: osm.wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield

I think it would also be useful if you included the source you used. It's not clear what battle happened there without it.

Thanks.

Ah, I see you only edited the node (changing date to note) rather than creating it. I'll post on the original changeset.

Apologies, that should be osm.org/node/6478931096

Hi,
With regard to osm.org/node/647893109 I would recommend using the historic=battlefield tagging scheme: osm.wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield

I think it would also be useful if you included the source you used. It's not clear what battle happened there without it.

Thanks.

Hi,
What is the source for way 903615352 (osm.org/way/903615352)? No service road appears to exist here on any satellite imagery. Is this an error?
Thanks.

Hi,

Thanks for contributing to OSM!

Just a heads up: when mapping footpaths, a lot of access tagging is implied - i.e., you don't really need to add "vehicle=no" to the ways as it's a footpath. You'd only add "vehicle=yes" if there was some case where vehicles were allowed on the path but, in that case, it probably wouldn't be a footpath.

Adding access=no isn't necessarily wrong as the individual transport modes do override it. But, again, it's not really needed as access rights are implied by highway=footway.

Also remember the access tags are legal access. So saying "no" means that access mode isn't legally allowed on that route. Sometimes, particularly for farm roads or tracks, it's more likely to be "private" for all access modes.

With public rights of way mapping, most don't tend to put the path reference as the name, instead just using prow_ref=*. Again, it's not necessarily wrong but the paths aren't really named that - it's just a reference code. If a path is actually named (for example "South West Coast Path") we add that to name=* and the PRoW ref in prow_ref=*

Hope that helps!

Hi Pete, thanks for making some improvements in the Cuddington area. I'm wondering what your reasoning is for changing many of the footpaths to paths? This seems like data loss to me: highway=footway is more specific (and, in these cases, more accurate) than just highway=path.

This change set changed a lot of unclassified roads to residential in the city centre area. I believe this to be incorrect and (many of) the roads are better mapped as unclassified. I'll be reverting what I can.

I don't think this section of road quite fits highway=pedestrian. Pedestrians aren't free to be walking on this bit of road without restriction. I think it's much better to be tagged as highway=unclassified with appropriate access tags (i.e. for buses/taxis/bikes) only.

The usage of hedge=* was relatively small until this change set (5k uses to 55k) and 93.7% of uses are now hedge=hedge_bank.

The use of hedge as a key remains undocumented. This probably should have had wider discussion for example on the tagging mailing list or a proposal.

"#RidePendle" removed from bridleways in osm.org/changeset/116347862 and116348143. Others were removed during mapping, these were from an overpass search.

Hi, the tag designation=bridleway is not documented. If this is a public bridleway (as in a public right of way) then the correct tag is designation=public_bridleway. However, the local authority's PRoW data shows this to be a public footpath, not bridleway, as was originally tagged. I wonder what your source is for the edit? Simply once being a bridleway doesn't mean that it is any longer. I suggest reverting back to designation=public_footpath, as this is the official designation, unless any on-the-ground evidence (e.g. public bridleway signs) suggest otherwise.

Hi, it looks like you've added "access=no" to the canal towpath. The path is a public footpath, so was this an error? Or is the path closed for some reason and, if so, do you know when it is due to re-open? Thanks.

Incorrect description. Correct description: Add details to Swinden Water reservoirs and add Swinden Water stream route.

Re-opened cycle path (and removed construction area) in osm.org/changeset/103649905

Source: local knowledge and https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/news/2021/apr/resurfaced-millennium-path-reopens-as-part-of-the-12-2m-caton-road-lancaster-flood-risk-management-scheme

Due to the unlikely nature of these mapped areas, and with no response, I've removed the military training areas in: osm.org/changeset/103485759