Great, thanks for checking :)

That sounds fantastic :D

Sounds good! I assume the ranger team have a way of feeding back path changes to you so the map continues to be updated over time?

Yeah, there’s a watercourse visible on the OS OpenData StreetView imagery. It might be seasonal, if it wasn’t visible when you cycled through.

I originally mapped this as a bridge on a survey in 2019 (changeset 70642115), but I might have been lax about the difference between bridge and culvert.

I’ve added the stream/ditch and changed the bridge to a culvert in osm.org/changeset/171142902. Please let me know if that matches what you saw, as I haven’t visited for a few months :)

OK, that reasoning makes sense. Thank you for sharing it.

It’s not completely clear cut, because councils have historically labelled quite a few different standards of path as a cycle path (narrow ones, ones without repeater signs, ones with unsuitable surfaces) and I’ve had the misfortune of cycling along them. Given the signage on the opposite side, as you say, that does make it more likely that this path isn’t meant as a cycle route, despite linking to a toucan crossing. Perhaps they put the toucan crossing in for future proofing.

I’ve added a note to the way in osm.org/changeset/171142314 to point other mappers to this discussion in case they think it’s mistagged in future.

OK, thanks, that clears that up. That kind of information would have been very useful to have in your changeset comment :)

I’ve added a note to the way in osm.org/changeset/171129521 pointing to this discussion so hopefully future mappers don’t undo the changes, because to a mapper without a really detailed knowledge of cycle path design/law, that pavement does look like it should be a cycle path.

Firstly, it’s good to hear about the reasoning for you changing the speed limit. It sounds unusual that the speed limit signs were removed, but stuff like that does happen, and I agree that waiting to see if it was a permanent or temporary change made sense. That resolves my question about the 20mph → 30mph change, thank you.

I gave a reason for why I removed those tags at the time. Changing the speed limit from 20mph to 30mph is a really unusual change (the council almost never increases speed limits), and unusual changes, even more so than other map changes, need to come with supporting evidence. Your changeset comment at the time said “swarthmoor 20 zone”, with no mention of a change to 30mph or why that might be. If you’d have mentioned in your changeset at the time about the speed limit signs being removed, that would have made everything clear to other mappers who look at this in future.

I care about the quality of the map. While you might interpret my comments and changes as “personal animosity”, that’s not my intention. I only comment when something is questionable or provably wrong (on _any_ edits in the north west, not targeting yours), and you’ve made a lot of edits like that. List your sources, as the DWG requested you to, and as many other mappers manage to do on a routine basis, and I will stop.

My comments on your changesets have become more blunt over the months only because you don’t reply to any of them. I’m open to a friendlier working relationship — we’re both obviously quite invested in editing the map, and that’s not going to change. I think the first step towards that is continuing a dialogue. :)

Hiya, did you mean to delete the bridge on osm.org/way/692645075 ?