I don't think I would have added a tag like that. Which specific way/node are you referring to? I found this: osm.org/way/625584880/history but it looks like it was actually you that added the tag when you first created the way?

Hi, this changeset resulted in an untagged line which was previously part of a natural=scrub area: osm.org/way/792836196/history
please consider fixing/removing

Hi, this changeset seems to have resulted in a bunch of tagless points in the map data (e.g. osm.org/node/1158392291). I'm assuming this wasn't your intention?

Hi, the Woodland Walk is a public footpath - so won't have "opening times". I wonder if the opening times instead refer to the waterfall/visitor centre? In which case, the opening hours tags should only be added to those parts.

Hi Andy, thanks for the heads up. Restored in osm.org/changeset/133173731

Hi, did you physically check the local authority's definitive map and statement for this route? And not just their online data - which can be incorrect/off. I think, since you are mapping on behalf of the National Trust there is a higher expectation on you to make sure you do not detrimentally edit the map. So if you are 100% sure this is not the public footpath route (i.e. you have checked the physical map and statement and discussed with the local authority) then you should also add in the correct route of the public footpath rather than just deleting the tags from the other path.

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.