Picture taken March 2025, since replaced with a metal printed sign at the start of April 2025
https://ibb.co/prj3HsVr

Sorry for the large changeset area, this changeset attempts to rectify my mistake in previous changes.
Issues happened when trying to separate modified nodes to smaller areas/changesets within JOSM. NaPTAN tags where
added to existing nodes without any tags for a given area. To make these changeset effected area smaller
nodes where copied to a new layer in small clusters then purged from the original layer, resulting in
new nodes being uploaded instead of updating existing. this changeset merges those new nodes with the existing

Wrong description: Added NaPTAN AtcoCode(s) to bus stop(s) where node is close to active NaPTAN stop

Wrong description: Added NaPTAN AtcoCode(s) to bus stop(s) where node is close to active NaPTAN stop

Following on from my last comment on change set
osm.org/changeset/126088498

Way 1093778686 (osm.org/way/1093778686#map=18/50.58922/-4.47966) appears to go though a hedge with no indication of a gate or stile in the hedge at that location (using Bing Aerial) but there is gate/gap 50 meters away to the west, also on the aerial photos a path can be seen in the grass going though the gate/gap and across the fields.
https://ibb.co/mX7XGXm
https://ibb.co/DK77BBF
Can be see just above the red line

"NLS - OS 1:10,560 National Grid Maps, 1940s-1960s"
https://ibb.co/HKz6b3K
and
"NLS - OS 1:25k 1st Series 1937-61"
https://ibb.co/hc6mVDg

The path appears on both layers, the mapped path follows OS 1:25k but OS 1:10,560 shows it the going though the gate/gap.

With Bing Aerial showing a slightly warn path in the grass going through the gate/gap and fields I would say OS 1:10,560 is correct BUT without a survey I cant be sure.

Please be carful adding and modifying paths without doing a ground survey first, as stated on Robert Whittaker PROW tool, "[...] please do not map Rights of Way just from this data [(Rights of Way GIS data)]; it is important that OSM reflects what is on the ground as well. Official Rights of Way are not always usable on the ground, and the paths on the ground do not always follow the Definitive Line. The PRoW GIS data (and Definitive Statements, where available and suitably licenced) should be used primarily to add appropriate PRoW tags to ways that have already been mapped from other sources such as aerial imagery (where paths and tracks can clearly been seen) or ground surveys."

In this change set you have added a new path which connects and stops on the A30 effectively a dead-end, a dangerous one at this. Indeed there is a path BUT it crosses the duel carriageway and joins with the other new path you also added ( Lewannick FP 12) which can be see on Mapillary (images are upside down but download and flip locally ), the path and steps can be seem on the left with the barrier on the right (once flipped)

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=504627057383855
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1138697636632444

can be seen in Bing Aerial:
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=50.60167302805955~-4.4570565812636564&sty=a&lvl=19

If you are using the GIS data provided by Cornwall Council please state it within the source tag "cornwall_council_prow_gis_data"

Sorry about that, corrected within osm.org/changeset/116866848

Went out and re checked today, the house is called Wit-Bank Hill as per the stain glass above door and the house number on the door

My mistake just a merge issue JOSM and deselecting the name tag.

The nearest NaPTAN stop to node 485403949 has the AtcoCode of 010000057, the common name of just "Nelson Street" and the indicator B5, when merging the tags the name tag was not deselected so it had overridden the OSM value.

This has been changed back in changeset 106141460

Please be careful with the image offsets you are using (if any) in JOSM.

Some of the changes which have been made to the roads and paths around Lamanva Close are a little off from what was surveyed and using a collaborated Bing offset ('Camborne Area' within JOSM, confirm by looking at recent GPS traces on Kerrier Way).

For example Lamanva Close has been moved from the centre of the road to the pavement.

Please be careful when deleting and moving already mapped poles. A mistake seems to have been made at a substation near Kehelland.
osm.org/changeset/93984938#map=18/50.22311/-5.32208

Please check your sources and cross reference the photos I took in Nov 2019 when Camborne FP 8 was surveyed https://imgur.com/a/XHwfrj4

Added service road to Old Penny's Tea Room*

Thank you for clarifying, will see if I can edit the wiki to reflect this.

Can you confirm the tag to use please? The wiki, osm.wiki/NaPTAN/Tag_mappings, says naptan:locality_name. If the wiki is incorrect can it be updated

Please give your reasoning and source for this change. Has the area in question been completely fenced off?

The land in question where this path was is access land (right to roam) reference ID2289 [1]

Survey of this area was done on the 2020-03-01 using GPS with photos taken for reference [2]

I believe this change the other other 2 within this area have been made by mistake, the area in question will be resurveyed and your changes reverted if found incorrect.

[1] https://map.cornwall.gov.uk/website/ccmap/?zoomlevel=8&xcoord=165577&ycoord=38052&wsName=ccmap&layerName=Access%20land%20(right%20to%20roam)

[2] https://ibb.co/0JHF9vn

Not a problem, Its nice to have decent aerial imagery covering Cornwall for once.

For the "Carn Brea BR 24 Ground Truth" relation (osm.org/relation/11047696) do you want the name tag removed and "Ground Truth" put within the description tag?

The reason "Ground Truth" was used is to indicate that this is the physical truth of the path. The data provided by Cornwall Council (CC) on PROW for this path, displayed on https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/cornwall/-/carn-brea/, is all over the place for example the CC route near the miners' dry heads NE then cuts across the car park which is impossible, the path is lined with a fence made up of the old cable which was used to winch ore and men out of the shaft, also that area is heavily overgrown; near the car park its a near vertical embankment, the path on the ground has been cut into the side of it and slops up to the car park. A similar situation can be seen the following relations, osm.org/relation/10376067 and osm.org/relation/10383474 (this issue was passed onto CC and they are looking into enforcing the definitive line and/or doing a DMMO)

There are multiple ways which a bridle way relation can be tagged as they are used by walkers (route=foot), horse (route=horse), bikes (route=bicycle) and mountain bikes (route=mtb). At the time it was surveyed it was walked so route=foot was used which needs to the 'network' tag (JOSM warning); and its part of the local walking network, so 'lwn'

Thank you for cleaning that up, corrections have been made in change set 71599026

Sure not a problem, there are lots of variants on how to tag these hedges. Using Overpass Turbo there's, 'barrier_type=cornish_hedge', 'hedge=Cornish', 'hedge=Cornish Hedge' & 'hedge_type=cornish' with the Cornwall wiki page suggesting 'barrier_type' which does not follow the naming pattern of other barrier types e.g. barrier=fence with fence_type=*. That's why 'hedge_type=' was used.