No worries, I didn’t read it as adversarial

> We can turn this around and ask "what is the source for tagging these ways as access=private

I gave my sources, as I do with all my edits.

The context for my comments here are that Pete Owens has been making tens of edits in the area which seem to quality as mass edits — changing lots of things without actually surveying them individually. Several of them have been demonstrably incorrect. He does not provide sources for any of his edits.

So this isn’t an isolated incident of me being picky about the precise details of an edit. It’s an attempt to deal with a pattern of behaviour which I’m pretty close to reporting to the DWG.

---

With that aside, I see your point about access=destination. However, that is the recommended tagging for public roads which are signposted with a “no motor vehicles except for access” sign, which I don’t believe these driveways are. To tag private driveways that way would be confusing.

It’s also unnecessary: aiui the implied right of access would apply even to access=private ways.

And it’s contrary to what the wiki recommends for tagging driveways: osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway

imo the question comes down to whether these roads should be tagged as access=private or have no access tag at all. And I believe that depends on who owns the land and whether the road is adopted by the council. The OSMUK Cadastral Parcels say the land is part of the same cadastral parcel as the houses, rather than the main road. I don’t know of any publicly licensed sources which could say whether the road is adopted by the council.

Hiya, what sources are you using to assert that these three ways off Jevington Way aren’t private?

osm.org/way/972045110
osm.org/way/972045084
osm.org/way/856409059

They’re included within the Cadastral Parcels of the houses rather than the main highway, have a different surface from the main Tern Grove road, and their centrelines doesn’t appear on OS OpenMap Local. Those facts all point to them being private.

Hiya, what sources are you using to assert that this isn’t a private drive? It’s included within the Cadastral Parcels of the two houses it fronts, has a different surface from the main Tern Grove road, only serves two properties, and its centreline doesn’t appear on OS OpenMap Local. Those facts all point to it being private.

Super, thanks for confirming.

Thanks for confirming. I think everything is correct on the map here now then.

I’ve fixed the alignment of houses on Smithy Close in osm.org/changeset/159127696

Heya, thanks for adding houses and other detail around Natland, it’s nice to see the map becoming more complete round here.

One thing — the aerial imagery around Natland is offset from ground truth by about -0.97,-1.04 metres, so please adjust the imagery before starting to edit. You can do this with the ‘Imagery Offset’ settings under ‘Background Settings’ on the right.

The aim is to align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay. This is needed because aerial imagery is only very roughly aligned by the supplier, and its relative alignment changes every time it’s updated, and changes across the country. Some places are several metres out of alignment compared to ground truth. So when editing map geometry it’s important to align the imagery before starting.

There’s more information about this on the wiki (osm.wiki/Good_practice#Align_aerial_imagery_before_tracing) but I’m also happy to answer questions if you have any

Happy editing :)

Hi, I’ve re-added this bridge in osm.org/changeset/159127095 and used a lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay) to mark it as missing, so that people editing the area in future can get some context about why the footpath seemingly randomly has a gap in it.

If I’m misinterpreted what you mean by ‘missing’ please say. It’s quite hard to tell from such a brief changeset comment. Please consider providing a little more information in your changeset comments in future, so other editors on this collaborative project can follow along. In particular, listing your sources makes it easier for edits to be checked. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks.

Have you surveyed the speed limits here now? What’s the source of your information?

For anyone reading this in future, this is a follow-up to osm.org/changeset/159067050

5mph seems a bit unlikely for the whole of Mears Beck Close. Have you surveyed this?

I’ve just messaged Roshmaps about it, thank you for the reminder.

What are you trying to achieve with these speed limits edits? Are you trying to make sure that every highway in the network has a speed limit set, even if that means guessing them? I’m interested in understanding your motivations here. It might help us see more eye-to-eye.

Hiya, did you mean to change osm.org/way/219044962 to access=permissive? That would indicate that the default access for that track is permissive, but the tracks either side of it are marked as access=private.

access=private is the norm for farm tracks

Thanks in advance :)

Are you sure the roads in Ripley St Thomas (e.g. osm.org/way/433800865) have a 10mph speed limit? I agree there’s a campus-wide speed limit of 10mph on the RLI campus, but Ripley St Thomas is separate.

What’s your source for this information?

Can you please stop adding speed limits to private driveways? It’s not correct.

For anyone looking at this later, this isn’t just an arbitrary deletion of a barn, it’s resolving a merge conflict. See osm.org/changeset/158898865

For anyone looking at this later, this isn’t just an arbitrary deletion of a track, it’s resolving a merge conflict. See osm.org/changeset/158898865

Also add some missing service roads/building passages along Stramongate, and roughly adjust the terraced building shape to accommodate them. This terrace needs a lot more work, but I don’t plan on doing that now.

Good point, done in osm.org/changeset/158813895 ta