Hi Olivia
This changeset has some positive additions but a number of changes that don't seem to make sense and there is no explanation in your changeset comment.
Why has Kingsway (osm.org/way/223530647) been marked as horse=no?
Why has the service road returning from the parking been changed into a track and had its surface tag removed (osm.org/way/258343829)?
Why has bicycle parking been added in the middle of that track (osm.org/node/10614333048)?

Thanks

Thanks for the idea. I didn't use description because that's not really what it is, but I see :reason is in use for some keys https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=reason#keys so have used sac_scale:reason osm.org/changeset/125697392

Hi Grimatways, welcome to OSM. I haven't looked at all of this changeset but wondered why you have changed various paths that had surface=grass to surface=gravel when they are over grass? e.g. osm.org/way/379671805
And others from surface=compacted to surface=gravel. surface=gravel has a wide range of use in OSM which includes compacted but not grass. Generally we should prefer a more precise surface tag.

I also wondered what your source was for "bicycle=yes; horse=no". You may well be right with these - I don't know the current bylaws in Darlington - but just wondered how you know?

Thanks

Tom

Hi AyushS183. Thanks very much. By the way, it turns out it is a permissible source and it would be great to make good use of it. Happy mapping.

Hi AyushS183
I think your changeset comment is a bit lacking - bike parking is not traffic calming. This also looks like a data import, which should normally be discussed with the osm community first. For example, how accurate are the locations and have you checked that what you are adding isn't already there? I'm also not sure if the data is a permissible source. You may wish to join a discussion about this on talk-gb@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2022-May/029024.html

Hi JonKrato. I've added a no left turn restriction from the Bradford Road to the one way valley road you added (which is for right-turns/ straight on) osm.org/way/701123741 in osm.org/changeset/121014632

I didn't look at it but caught it in the back of a photo https://i.postimg.cc/3NZSxTrH/20220404-0924301648781434423631840.jpg
You'll see it's basically at the end of the entrance road and presumably permit holders only like the rest of the car park

Hi ivanbranco

Thanks for asking. Yes, I'm sort of trying it out before asking much more widely about it, although I've mentioned it on talk-gb.

I'm using it for a named group of buildings. As you've seen this can often also be the same as an area of landuse and I've tended to include this where possible as named landuse tends to render. There are other cases where the building complex crosses landuses like Richmond Terrace osm.org/way/1036979764 or is a smaller part of an also named landuse like Westfield Mills osm.org/node/9553059188 in Westfield Industrial Estate.
These named building complexes are often used in postal addresses but can be hard to add to the map without an approach such as this.

Hope that helps,
TC

See also osm.org/way/62642567/history

Thanks. Maybe it was a tag copied from a node when converting to an area or something - I found another fixme=yes nearby by an earlier mapper.

Hi MapperTwo. I spotted a fixme on Carmel college, but didn't know what wanted fixing? osm.org/way/383962892
Thanks

It's true that this is contested either way (which is why I made the original edit also referred to). It's also true that addr:village is not documented on the wiki. However, usage of addr:suburb as a sole choice between street- and city-level worldwide is also not documented as far as I can see. Indeed, the addr:suburb page says: "If setting the suburb name is not necessary for solving disambiguation use other tags like addr:hamlet=*, addr:district=*, addr:subdistrict=*." That being said, I can understand the benefits of a catch-all tag for addressing purpose, but I don't think there's a consensus in the UK that addr:suburb is that tag.

Hi Mike

Just wondering which of the Dades Well nodes are better placed:
osm.org/node/7528772459
osm.org/node/664035839
Thanks :-)

Hi zstadler. I transferred the existing ele tag from the node labelled The Chevin to Beacon Hill. osm.org/node/315910131/history

I wouldn't mind it being in metres but I didn't convert it. I also noticed there seems to be an ongoing discussion about whether this insistence is appropriate since it's not how we treat other measurements osm.wiki/Talk:Key:ele#Feet_and_inches

Hi there. I was going to add a few paths in this area but I spotted a few things that I thought I should check since you've only recently edited here. This short section of footway osm.org/way/985744766 just joins into a wall where there should be a track - I think you added the road and then removed it again?
The sections of osm.org/way/985531527 and osm.org/way/985531526 south-west of the wall are permissive paths (the signs have white arrows, the public footpath has yellow arrows). Also, this osm.org/node/9111061308 just seemed to be a normal foot gate (barrier=gate) not a bump gate osm.wiki/Tag:barrier=bump_gate
I plan to make these changes but thought I'd let you know. Cheers

I was coming here to wonder the same. I'll add it back given there was no response. There are some covid related arrangements but it's still a pub.

Hi James and Jerry

The data on the Data Mill North site is importable to JOSM with the right plugin if you are comfortable with that editor. Unfortunately we can't just look at the map on the Council website because of the ordnance survey background layer. I only became aware of the dump on Data Mill North about a month ago and plan to systematically apply it to OSM for Aireborough and Otley. I was also thinking of asking Nick Whitelegg of adding the data to MapThePaths to make it easier to work with. As you say Jerry, both the precise path placement but also the stiles and gates as claimed can be a bit different from reality.

Hi James. It's great you're adding MTB scale and would be good to add permissive and public from a survey of signs. I'm guessing from the map description you mean a modern os map, not one published before 1971. If so we shouldn't be using this source (or pretty much any other modern map) as it's copyrighted unfortunately. I haven't looked in detail at which paths you've changed and have surveyed some of the signs so I'll see where I can add that as the source.

Cheers Mike. I'm always happy to receive feedback if you spot changes I make that could be done better.

Hi Mike

I'm planning to remove the eastern end of [this path](osm.org/way/4445311) - it's either a very minor path (I can't see it, but it is late summer) or it was what you added as [this path a bit uphill](osm.org/way/91885545). Anyway, in case it should be kept I thought I'd send you a message!

Tom