Ah, indeed, in this case whoever mapped this has split the driveway at the property boundary, so this edit makes sense.

But more generally, what about the other private driveways you’ve put a speed limit on?

Hiya. Are you sure it’s valid to set a speed limit on someone’s private driveway? As I understand it, speed limits apply to public roads. None of these driveways have a speed limit signed on the ground.

I think perhaps you are being misled by the title which the ID editor applies to crossing=traffic_signals nodes. It does title them as “Crossing With Pedestrian Signals”, but if you look lower down, the Type is “Crossing With Traffic Signals”. I think it’s a bug for ID to title them “Crossing With Pedestrian Signals”.

In any case, the wiki gives the canonical meaning of the tags, not whatever labels ID applies to them. See osm.wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dtraffic_signals

As I have said previously, the wiki documents bicycle=dismount as meaning that no cycling is allowed, but you are allowed to push your bike. See osm.wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount

So bicycle=dismount is legally correct here, and more appropriate than bicycle=no because of the “cyclists dismount“ signs. IMO these are an acknowledgement from the council that cycling is not legal for a short stretch here, but that people will want to do it because there are cycle paths at both ends of the dismount stretch.

The wiki documents crossing=traffic_signals as “This tag is used for traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings.”, i.e. the lights are for the traffic, not the pedestrians. That describes what’s here on the ground. Pedestrians cross when the lights are red, and vehicles won’t stop otherwise. IIRC there isn’t a button for pedestrians to request to cross, and that can be represented using button_operated=no. I didn’t add that tagging because I haven’t explicitly resurveyed it to check that.

Could you please stop removing geometric detail from the map? If you think these shouldn’t be crossings, then maybe change them to footway=link, but don’t delete correct geometric detail which others have added to the map.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation

How is this not a cycle crossing? It has a cycle path on both sides and no signage saying it’s not a cycle crossing.

And the ref has been removed in osm.org/changeset/158186823

(For anyone reading this in future, the discussion which led to this change is on osm.org/changeset/158181121)

Makes sense, changed to service=drive-through in osm.org/changeset/158187613

Thanks! :D

Is it part of the A5074? It’s still tagged with ref=A5074.

If I’m reading the W&F network map correctly, it’s actually U5767, so should perhaps be tagged highway_authority_ref=U5767?

In fact, osm.wiki/Tag%3Ageological%3Dglacial_erratic specifically says that it should be used with natural=stone.

I’ve changed it to natural=stone in osm.org/changeset/158161166

Hiya :) Are you sure this should be natural=bare_rock rather than natural=stone?

osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dbare_rock documents the former as being bedrock, which the Bowder Stone isn’t. natural=stone seems more appropriate to me.

I see you’re getting to the bit of Skerton that I have patchily mapped in detail in the past. It’s going to look a lot better once you’ve had a go at it :D Thanks!

Thanks, I missed that when reworking the junction. I’ve changed the new link to a primary_link and added some more turn restrictions in osm.org/changeset/158070290.

I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing about the on-the-ground legal status of this path. Cycling is not allowed on it.

But I’ll repeat again: bicycle=dismount is documented as meaning that cycling is not allowed. It means the same thing as bicycle=no. It is appropriate tagging, but it reflects the signage and the fact that this way *is* part of NCN6 (as far as I can tell) better than having something tagged as bicycle=no in the middle of an NCN.

If this way is tagged as bicycle=no, someone who hasn’t been party to this discussion is going to come along and change the tagging again in future, based on seeing the ‘cyclists dismount’ sign.

Hi, you appear to have deleted Heysham harbour again. Please be careful not to do that :)

If you think the harbour should be mapped differently, please say what you think is wrong about the current mapping, and we can work out how to improve it. Thanks.

I asked what you saw when you surveyed it for making this edit.

Are you saying this is not part of NCN6? If so, where is NCN6 routed?

bicycle=dismount is not misleading. It does not mean that cycling is allowed — exactly the opposite. It means that cycling is not allowed, and that cyclists should dismount and push their bikes. How is that tagging incorrect for the signage which is visible on the ground?

That is unfortunate. Perhaps a better use of time would be to file a bug against those cycle routing applications to change their default assumptions and only use highway=footway ways if they are explicitly tagged as bicycle=yes/designated/permissive? Having that as a default would surely cause fewer routing errors from avoiding using pavements which actually *do* allow cycling (false negatives) than there are currently routing errors from suggesting using pavements which don’t allow cycling (false positives).