So it is. Not sure what that was about. At a guess it auto completed after I started typing campsite to add the subtag and then looked at the wiki and either forgot or decided against using it, or I was trying to say you paid in cash only and messed up, but I can't remember. I've removed it.
Thanks

P.S. nice location, typical farmer-run basic campsite.

For example, did you survey the possible maypole and four benches in Kettlewell? Is there a streetlight where you have left it? osm.org/note/2825531

Thanks

Thanks Mike
osm.org/changeset/150900721

Hi Mike

I was considering changing Crinkle Crags to be a ridge line (natural=ridge) as I think that's a reasonable description of it. Thought I'd check in with you and see if you had an opinion before doing so.
Cheers, Tom

Great.
There's always more to do!

That's good. Also, the other changes you've made today seem good. The other thing I've done is add a link to the crossing osm.org/node/2594539624

I noticed a link is missing at the other end of the new footway too:
osm.org/node/11809412032
I realise there's a fixme on it but if you know it connects to the road that's best done for now.
Also, to let you know there is the 'OSMUK cadastral parcels' layer which looks like it would be helpful for finishing the path off and refining its position. This relates to property boundaries and so isn't always things that should be mapped but is often very helpful. It can also be a bit off, particularly for older properties, but for new properties placement is usually highly accurate.

Hi Max, it's Tom from Talk-GB.

I had just pressed send on the last message when I spotted something else so I thought I'd send a message this way.

What happens when the new footway reaches Lime Trees? osm.org/node/11809412034/ Should it join the service way?

Okay, thanks. In general, it would help if you named your sources (more specifically than OS) in your changeset comments to make it clear where the information has come from.

I can see you're making some good additions and improvements but, while I'm here, I'm going to offer some advice on tagging.

place=locality is for uninhabited places, so some additions (not in this changeset) would have been better with other tags. e.g. Great Pasture (osm.org/node/11739131857) might have been better as a hamlet or neighbourhood? Also, in that case you could have just added the name to the landuse=residential since it seems fairly well defined.

Some of the 'places' don't seem well-placed (Park Gate osm.org/node/11462568363) or like they probably aren't places (e.g. Sun Lane osm.org/node/11470205845 and Farr Royd - aren't they road names?)

highway=path - although appealing because it is non-specific - can be quite misleading for other users unless you also specify whether e.g. motor vehicles, horses, bicycles, can use it. In general it's best to use highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway for 'paths' if you can discern whether they are used by bikes/horses or not.

I'm not sure why you have changed osm.org/way/1263503384 from track to bridleway as it seems to me like a track used to access the field over the railway line (which also happens to be a public bridleway). If you were marking the difference after access to the building then it should probably be as a service road that far (now I say it, it probably should anyway). And I don't think it was necessary to turn the track around the corner at the junction with Sun Lane. As I see it, Sun Lane carries on and the track (or service road) joins pretty much perpendicular. If you came from the track bit of Sun Lane and turned right onto the track towards the railway line you wouldn't have to turn right back on yourself, you would just turn right.

Sorry for the massive post and I hope you find it helpful. I'm imagining you are going to keep making contributions so I'm trying to help them be as good as they can. Thanks

So the thing is, if it's come from one of those then it needs deleting, unless you can find another suitable source. It gives me no pleasure to say that but it's to avoid OSM getting sued and going bust.

Thanks. Local knowledge is fine but ordnance survey may not be - depending on which OS product it is. Many are protected by copyright so we aren't allowed to use them. Some old maps are out of copyright, there's also OS OpenData and OS OpenMap Local, OS Open Names, for example, all of which are fair game, but the current OS 1:25k /1:50k maps are not okay (and many others). Thanks again.

Hi benjo384

Thanks for these changes. I'm wondering what your source is for them?

Tom

Accidentally pressed enter...
Adding link to Emm Lane and split of Frizinghall Road at junctions with Keighley Road. Some alignment. and crossings

Hi there. Thanks for your careful additions to OSM. I'm concerned that some of your additions such as this are from sources that we shouldn't be copying from in OSM. Here, because the website has data about many care providers, the website is in effect a database, so is probably protected by copyright law unless they have given you explicit permissions.

Hi there. Do you think you should have merged the Wilko node osm.org/node/11386363460 (and removed tags) with the building you created? It looks like there's two Wilkos next to each other. Cheers

Hi Beetec
Thanks for this edit - you're right it should be destination only for motor vehicles. Just to let you know, the access tag is for everything - even on foot or bike. I've changed this to the motor_vehicle tag. Thanks, Tom

Good spot. Didn't see the web key from Every Door. https://bullsheadinn.co.uk/ doesn't resolve so I've removed it.

I finally got around to asking about this on talk-gb https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-May/030398.html
The first couple of responses are in favour of adding designation=public_* despite it not being in the definitive map/statement. In which case I think I'd add a definitive_prow=no tag or similar so they could be found separately.

Thanks. I can't find any mention of the track being lit anywhere, and you'd think they'd have made an announcement about it if it was a retrofit, so I might just leave it as-is until the situation is clearer. Thanks again. Tom

Hi Daveymorrisuk. As well as correcting the tagging to leisure=track here you added lit=no. Obviously it was a long time ago but I wondered if you remembered why? I was there yesterday and there were lights, but it was the middle of the day so I can't be sure they work. Thanks 👍

Thanks skifans.

It's about Cunliffe Lane and a bunch of other 'non-definitive' paths around Esholt, as well as some other Bradford CC areas apparently (though I'm unlikely to get to those). On the one hand the on-the-ground signage is official 'Public bridleway' / 'Public footpath', but clearly that's not the legal position and their rights of way map data is open licensed. It's unclear what the council have done so far apart from mapping and signing it, and it doesn't sound like there's much prospect of them becoming designated in the next eight years (before the current cut-off). So you're probably right that proposed: is too strong.

However we choose to map it the verifiability issue will remain I think (unless I'm misunderstanding) given what the council have and haven't done. So I think designation=non_definitive_public_bridleway etc makes a lot of sense (although likely to suffer hyphen underscore confusion. If not then maybe as you also suggest non-definitive:designation, or unofficial:designation. Whatever it'll need a note to explain what's going on.