Reverted in changeset 158458932
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.

A revert of changeset 158209334 made by coastlinebot
Part of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.

A revert of changeset 158209209 made by coastlinebot
Part of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.

Reverted in changeset 158458721
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.

Reverted in changeset 158458035
Part of group of changesets from new user, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastline boat has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.

I've reverted this in changeset 158341088

The removal of the breakwater makes no mapping sense, I am concerned user is a bot, and there has been no response to the changeset comment.

Changeset reverts changeset 158208435 which deleted clearly existing breakwater.

I agree, it appears this breakwater still exists and therefore should not have been deleted.

Coastlinebot, you've undertaken several similar editis. Can you explain what you up to?

The blue UK sign "Cyclists Dismount" clearly misleads many people who believe it requires cyclists to dismount. It is significant problem when it leads to wrong info being added to OSM.

The legislative meaning of the blue "Cyclists Dismount" sign is this. It is an advisory sign, that for a short section ahead the path may prove impossible to ride on due to (1) Load head height (2) restricted width (3) restricted visibility. Case Law confirms it can be used for only these reasons (eg not a Cattle Grid, or path next to cliff). It needs repeating this is advice, and not a prohibition.

But, the sign may also be used to emphasise two locations where cycling is prohibited (1) Pedestrian Crossing (2) entrance to Pedestrian area.

So the sign I can see on Google StreetView is unlawfully placed.

I believe that the the signed "No Cycling" is the main access consideration. It goes beyond the common bicycle=no because it informs an offence is committed.

Therefore it's important we map this a bicycle=no

Sustrans creating routes along ways that cannot be ridden is a bit of a joke.

Don't know area, so leave it up to local mappers to make the decision.

Hi Jack,
Google has specific "Terms of Service" for Google Maps (streetview/Google Earth). You accept these Terms of Service by using all Google Maps products.

The "Terms of Service" therefore prohibit not just tracing, but extraction of any data. So you can not extract house number data.

Hi trigpoint.

In England the speed limit laws (Road Traffic Act) apply to all roads that the general public have at least "Tolerated Access" to.

For privately owned driveways and footways leading to a property, it is considered the public have "tolerated access" to reach the front door. This won't be the case if there is a locked gate, a sign specifically revoking access. Just stating "Private Road" is not enough.

But, UK speed limits mostly require signage to enforce, so hard to enforce on many Private Roads.

Hi lgladdy,

Just randomly seen this changeset discussion while looking at a changeset discussion webpage

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United%20Kingdom#5/55.058/-0.119

My instinct is that the Elizabeth Parade "footway" to the east, is way that allows access for bicycles (pedal cycles).

OSM tag, highway=footway, is considered by default to mean bicycle=no . I suspect this is not the case here.

Hi ReubenBen,

You've mapped and tagged some of the grass areas as natural=grassland. That tag is for natural areas. The grass in Devon Cliffs is nearly all amenity grass, or mown grass. The tag should be landuse=grass.

Thanks,
JassKurn

Hi,

You moved an address node (6635151169) about 500m to the west into a field. Assuming it was just a mistake. These things happen.

I moved it back to the correct location in changeset
osm.org/changeset/155113178

Hi,

You've added a peak and named it Rushford Tower.
osm.org/node/12093032270

There is no peak, hill, etc at that location named Rushford Tower. A spot height could be added but it would be much further to the north. Can't find any source for a spot height?

The name visible on some maps refers to the building at that location. A Victorian "folly". Recent OS Maps seem to no longer show the building but only the name. I know about it, and surprised hasn't been added. I'm just going to add it after finishing this post.

Jass

Hi medlineconsultancylimited,

The tagging you used was in line with the tagging we use in OpenStreetMap, and therefore wouldn't have been recognised by data users & map makers.

I've fixed the tagging in changeset - 154816735

I've reverted your changeset and I've fixed the tagging in changeset - 154816735

Hi Mueschel,

In this changeset you delete a node that contained useful "information". The tagging was completely wrong, but the tagging not meet my definition of "spam". I believe the correct action would have been to fix the tagging, and inform the original editor of their blunder.

Why did you consider it "spam", and why did you decide not to fix the tagging and simply delete the node and data?

Hi,

You've corrected a previous an obvious blunder made when tagging this road. The road type was wrong, and access was wrong.

Open data shows it's the B4574

Some incorrect access info has been left behind. Foot & bicycle are left as permissive on public road. Made a change to remove fix and remove unnecessary tagging in changeset 154777539

Hi,

This type of problem was recently discussed on the UK section of the OSM Community Forum. I've linked to the post I made because it has a few links. The discussion went off-topic.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/marking-a-prow-as-a-bad-idea/113487/6

A public right of way is a "right" not a physical highway. If there is no "way" for the PRoW to be followed, then I'd suggest the PRoW tagging should still be added but to a way tagged with highway=no.

Two personal examples, which I've just updated.

First is PRoW Bridleway route in Dartmoor that is now within the expanding Foxtor Mire. Is not used and obviously "Hazardous" to cross this bog. Tagged.

highway=no
hazard=wetland
designation=public_bridleway
horse:physical=no
foot:physical=no
bicycle:physical=no
prow_ref=Dartmoor Forest Bridleway 34
smoothness=impassable
source:prow_ref=devon_county_council_prow_gis_data
surface=bog
trail_visibility=no

Second, example is bridleway that can not be used because a large section is obstructed by impenetrable gorse, heather, bracken. Hazard becomes "obstacle". Tagged.

highway=no
obstacle=vegetation
designation=public_bridleway
horse:physical=no
foot:physical=no
bicycle:physical=no
prow_ref=Manaton Bridleway 8
source:prow_ref=devon_county_council_prow_gis_data
trail_visibility=no