Hi bbqman,

I've seen this and a few other of your edits don't have a changeset comment.

It's important to always add a changeset specific, and descriptive meaningful comment. This allows others to know what your doing.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks, Jass.

Hi, didn't mean for this to get such a long set of responses after making the initial comment. I've got some issues, or am struggling with the decision of when highway=bridleway should be used. There are issues with tagging british designated public bridleways that follow a route along tracks, cycleways, and roads. I'll think I'll make some notes and seek a wider view on the mapping. I respond here again when I do.

Hi, Can you give a bit more detail about tagging this "way" as bridleway. Does not appear managed as bridleway. And previous tagging as track made via landowner.

I have reverted this changeset

osm.org/changeset/142818835

I have reverted this in the following changeset

osm.org/changeset/142817683

I have reverted the changeset

osm.org/changeset/142683204

This mass edit removed the brand:wikipedia=* where brand:wikidata=* is present. Also removed source tags, and some FHRS tags

Regardless of merit of tagging, the process must first be discussed on talk-GB mailing list.

I have reverted the changeset

osm.org/changeset/142670308

This mass edit removed the brand:wikipedia=* where brand:wikidata=* is present. Also removed source tags, and some FHRS tags

Regardless of merit of tagging, the process must first be discussed on talk-GB mailing list.

I have reverted the changeset

osm.org/changeset/142670295

This mass edit removed the brand:wikipedia=* where brand:wikidata=* is present. Also removed source tags, and some FHRS tags

Regardless of merit of tagging, the process must first be discussed on talk-GB mailing list.

I have reverted the changeset

osm.org/changeset/142670289

This mass edit removed the brand:wikipedia=* where brand:wikidata=* is present. Also removed source tags, and some FHRS tags

Regardless of merit of tagging, the process must first be discussed on talk-GB mailing list.

I have reverted the changeset

osm.org/changeset/142670283

This mass edit removed the brand:wikipedia=* where brand:wikidata=* is present. Also removed source tags, and some FHRS tags

Regardless of merit of tagging, the process must first be discussed on talk-GB mailing list.

I have reverted the changeset

osm.org/changeset/142670270

This mass edit removed the brand:wikipedia=* where brand:wikidata=* is present. Also removed source tags, and some FHRS tags

Regardless of merit of tagging, the process must first be discussed on talk-GB mailing list.

I have reverted the changeset

osm.org/changeset/142670251

This mass edit removed the brand:wikipedia=* where brand:wikidata=* is present.

Regardless of merit of tagging, the process must first be discussed on talk-GB mailing list.

Hi,

First off, I'm having a couple of internet issues, and may have duplicated this post. So sorry if this is the second time it pops up.

I'm not sure/conflicted about the use of the tag "grassland=moor". It's a strange tag that appears to have been chucked into the wiki after it was decided "natural=moor" was a bad tag which was being duplicated by "heath".

"Heath" and "Moor" are problem terms in the UK, because use overlaps. Experts looking for a more "defined" term seem to prefer using Heath, but breaking down Heath into differently types (dry/lowland, upland, chalk, etc).

Using Overpass indicates the GB use of "heath" and not "grassland=moor".

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1B9x

I do think there is a need to be able to separate the different "land types" we see in the vast areas we map as "heath" in the UK. But I think it should done in as "heath" types.

What are your views? I feel this might be a topic to be discussed on the talk_GB mailing list?

Apologies,

The area I was editing in was relatively small . The issue was I deleted objects that were connected out the area I'd downloaded (josm). A stupid decision I should be well aware not to do. A bit of an editing disaster.

Thought I'd fixed most of the issues in subsequent edit, but thanks for the fixes, and apologies for taking up your time.

Jass

Hi,

Can you clarify your method for this. I'm concerned you may have "thrown the baby out with the bathwater"

eg
Have you compared with a relation on the same way to see if the tag was already there? (a duplicate tag)

If the relation was present and the tag missing, did you add the tag?

If the relation was not present did you investigate to see if there was a missing route relation, and if there was did you create this relation?

From a very quick look it appears this is something that should be dealt with using the fixme tag.

Hi,

In this changeset and the previous one, you added objects and tagged them as chimneys. They are not what OpenStreetMap defines as chimneys (removal of smoke/gases)

osm.wiki/Tag:man%20made=chimney

They are Ventilation Shafts (create flow of air in a space such as a mine or tunnel)

The lack of connection in the Wiki pages are not helpful. So I'll make a change.

Hi,

You've changed a large number of "footway" to "path", but have not added the access tags needed for path. For many of these footway/paths in this area it is illegal to use a bicycle or horse, but your changes suggest access for horses & bicycles.

The Path tag is a bit of mess, and without access tags implies the way only prohibits motor vehicle use. And there is not way to confidently know surface type.

osm.wiki/Tag:highway=path

osm.org/user/Richard/diary/20333

I agree with using Path for for these informal rural ways, and had been looking to replace footway with path across Dartmoor But it must be done with the addition of access tags, and surface tags. The need is greater in Dartmoor as it's illegal for horse & bicycle to use most "paths", unless they are specifically allowed (eg bridleways access)

For most conversions I'd suggest something like

highway=path
foot=yes
vehicle=no
horse=no
surface=grass
smoothness=*
lit=no

and maybe informal=yes

Gave the site a visit yestderday, and made some slight changes to tie in the fences. I can't find any evidence online that the landowner had permission for this change, even though it's minor. I'm going to email Devon CC to see if it had permission, and if the kissing gates can be used as there is no livestock to protect.

You haven't done anything wrong. The main map shown on the website updates within half an hour.

But, your browser saves the images you've previously seen to reduce the amount of data you use. You're seeing the old map images saved on your phone / computer. To force your computer download new map images press ctrl+F5

Ok, thanks.