Hi WillFR130

Tagging is difficult, especially in the UK, where we assume the use of English words for tags, mean what they state.

Generally it good advice to map using the wiki.

In the UK farmland is generally split into two types, Arable Farming and Pastoral Farming. Unfortunately during the evolution of OSM we ended with (arguably) confusing tags. I believe because for much of the world grazing animals roam across open areas, and not the dense network of fields found in NorthWest Europe.

Arable Farming land is mapped as..
landuse=farmland
crop=(type)

Pastoral Farming land is mapped as..
landuse=meadow
meadow=pasture

Your fields are used for Pastoral Farming, and should be mapped as such. It's common in the UK for Pastoral Farmers to cut the grass (for silage etc) a few times during the summer. But it should still fall under Pastoral Farming.

So tag the fields as
landuse=meadow
meadow=pasture

Have a look at the following three wiki pages.

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse=farmyard?uselang=en-GB

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow

It can be useful to also add the hedges, but be careful to make sure they are broken up and don't create an area.

Also helpful on farm to map track and service roads, and add the access key if known.
eg access=private.
Problem with with walkers using maps being routed along private tracks missing access rules.

Jass Kurn

Hi rskedgell,

I think it is wrong to make the changes you did based on the data you used.

Ihorner2, did state the route had been changed, suggesting knowledge of a change.

PRoW routes change and many are being diverted around field edges. The available digital definitive maps take time to update.

If it has been changed there must be an Order, and it will published on the appropriate authorities website.

A quick search shows there is an Order that reroutes this Footpath. Made on the 8th February 2024, so came into effect on the 7th March 2024.

https://www.essexhighways.org/getting-around/public-rights-of-way/public-path-notices

I can't remember why I added this specific tag on node

osm.org/node/12008703519

I do know I've thought several times there needs to be a way to tag the fact guideposts are specifically for "Public Rights of Way" or PRoW.

But, with that said I do not remember doing this, and the tag isn't very helpful. I've deleted it in changeset

osm.org/changeset/153246711

Thanks for letting me know.

I've gone back and had a look at his.
Found video of on YouTube that confirms we're dealing with gates that are not locked.

https://youtu.be/5N8bW8Tzi74?si=eFzh8OeIWIiNCFMR&t=56

(questions about observations of facts in youtube being an acceptable source)

I also managed to create an Overpass Query to show "locked=yes" on all PRoW designated ways.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Nb7

They problem tags mostly appear due to editing by the National Trust

Hi Dan,

From experience I guessed the problem would be on a node along the way. Dragging end point of Komoot route along the footway confirmed that the issue was the tagging on the gates.

An error has been made and the gates have locked=yes. Which means no access through the gate.

I tried to create on Overpass search to show locked gates on public rights of way. But I wasn't up to the task.

The search below is a more basic and shows anything tagged locked=yes. So will help you find the locked gates.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1N6A

Hi Tom.

You've removed a post box, north of Exeter that I am confident is still in use. It appears you've used Mapillary images available via pic4review. It can be seen on Mapillary images dates 11 may 2024.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17&lat=50.7547185&lng=-3.5541450999972&dateFrom=2023-01-01&focus=photo&pKey=1857562381379818&x=0.4863778702581276&y=0.6190027201371464&zoom=0
Road imagery can miss post boxes that are behind parked cars, set back into a hedge.

Thanks,

Jass

Hi.
It looks like you've added the barber at the wrong location? Should be on Blackboy Rd, and not Toronto Road?

Hi UKDiver

You've edited the addr:housename key to provide info the business is closed.

The addr:housename key can not be used in that way. It's agreed that in the UK the addr:* keys are strictly for the recognised address elements.

There's (a rather long) guide on UK address tagging linked below

osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

The name key is a better location for info. Many would state the information should be under the description key.

Jass

Sorry made a mistake with key, but no means of editing my comment.

You removed amenity=pharmacy, and replaced with disused:amenity=pharmacy. But the pharmacy did not close, it has new owners & name.

Hi Bird Soup.

I can see you removed a large number of "LLoyds Pharmacies", which has ceased trading.

But on all the edits I've looked at you've also set the node as disused:pharmacy=yes. I believe this is wrong for most of the former Lloyds Pharmacies. The pharmacies have mostly been taken on by new owners

Current info suggest that for this pharmacy, the owner and name changed. It is now "PHARMACY @ ROXTON" . Confirmed by the NHS website and their business website.

https://www.nhs.uk/services/pharmacy/pharmacy-@-roxton/XFPJ55

https://www.pharmacyatroxton.co.uk/

If I'm correct. The a large number of the pharmacies you've edited to show disused are still in use, and need to be fixed.

Jass

Hello Eduardino_the_thirth,

You made errors with you first edit in OpenStreetMap. May have been to do with map.me? I reverted the changeset and no harm is done

The camp sites you added do not exist (as defined by OpenStreetMap) and the waterfall / attraction is already mapped. Don't put this off adding more info to OpenStreetMap

Thanks, Jass

The changeset I used to do the revert is linked below.

osm.org/changeset/151079762#map=12/50.5733/-3.8242

Hi Katherine.

I asked for some opinions on the talk_GB mailing list. General view was the foot=no & bicycle=no should not be there because there are no such prohibitions in place.

Others pointed out that routers should, or created maps, should be able to deduce that this road was not appropriate for cycling (eg cycle.travel)

So... I removed the the two tags in changeset
osm.org/changeset/148512721

Jass

Hi Alwyn,

In this changeset your adding a Hiking Route, part of a "super relation". The name overall name "LGa Land's End to Exeter", is not a name I recognise, or find on websites recording UK trails.

I assuming that your mapping a "Land's End to John O'Groats" hiking route? Commonly known as LEJog.

If so I believe it can't be in OSM. My knowledge of this famous hike or cycle, is that there is no official or recognised, defined route on the ground.

A search on the UK "Long Distance Walkers Association" website confirms this.

https://ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/show_path.php?path_name=Land%27s+End+to+John+o%27+Groats

Assuming I'm correct and your mapping this LEJoG can you provide the source and how it can be verified

Thanks, Jass

Hi Katherine.

You've added the tag foot=no, bicycle=no and horse=no. I agree with the intent of your change, but the access tags are for clear legislative access limitations.

There are no prohibitions of using this dual carriageway for horses, cycles, & pedestrians. If the highways authority wanted to introduce an access limitation for foot & cycles, they would need to create a high quality parallel route for foot & cycles. "National Highways" do not wish to undertake this project so we have a situation where we have a highway clearly not suitable for cycling/foot but it is allowed.

I'm going to ask for some views in the talk-GB mailing list (later on) because I do agree obvious unsuitability for cycling/foot should have some way of being tagged.

Jass

Hi, you appear to have duplicated an already mapped barrier. The presence of a barrier is already mapped as barrier=planter

osm.org/node/10763618871

If there has been a change to the barrier then its is the original tag should be changed to protect history.

If it is a now a bicycle=barrier then you need to map the access restrictions for bicycles. Some bicycle barriers allow bicycles through, other do not. Thanks.

Hi Andy R (NZ),
I've reverted this changeset. The imagery you used is outdated and the buildings you mapped are gone. You deleted the new layout and mapped the old

osm.org/changeset/144981333

There is still mapping details to be sorted out for the new buildings.

Jass

Hi all. I agree with Trigpoint. We restrictions/prohibitions that are signed. And in this case very heavy farm vehicles will be using this road.

This is one of numerous roads in Devon that the Devon County Council has now defined as "Track - Green Lane". This means it has the lowest level of maintenance, with I believe the surface eventually ending up as "compacted" Other roads of this type in Devon are mapped as Tracks

I know and do some mapping in this area. I will make some changes I am confident about.

Hi Sammiisle

Do you know this road? I've done mapping in this area, and am aware it, but have not travelled along it.

My instinct is that is should be mapped as a track, with appropriate tagging that makes clear it limitations for access

eg
highway=track
lit=no
motor_vehicle=discouraged
smoothness=horrible
surface=asphalt
tracktype=grade2

Would this be acceptable?

Hi,

I was in Exeter today had a look at this store. I've made a couple of changes to the Wilko data. I've moved it onto the node where the store data had previously been.

There is a problem with the wikidata tag that I'm not sure about how to solve. This is not the old Wilko reopened. The old Wilko business is gone, with valuable parts split up and sold. CDS Superstores bought the name "Wilko" and several of the old stores. They have today opened a store at this site with the name Wilko, but it's not the previous business, and there is a sign inside the entrance stating this new Wilko is not the old Wilko business.

This causes and issue with wikidata tag. The wikidata tag is clearly for the old Wilkinson business and not the new brand.

I've removed the wikidata tag, Not sure how to handle this but I think I'll send an email to the talk_GB mailing lists in a few day.

A quick search shows that wifi can not be presumed at McDonalds.