Hiya, are you sure this is the correct landuse here? Presumably you’re adding it because of the number of B&Bs around The Heads? This area of Keswick has a relatively residential feel (all the B&Bs are converted old houses), and was already inside a landuse=residential area. I suggest it should stay as landuse=residential.

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your edits around Low Bridge End.

It looks like you might be trying to solve a routing problem where apps are planning people’s walks to use the tea garden as a through route? Can you provide some more details about what’s happening and which apps are being problematic here?

From your changeset comments, it looks like the previous tagging (access=no, foot=customers, highway=footway) was correct, and these changes to mark it as informal=yes and access=private aren’t correct. Access tagging in OpenStreetMap is unfortunately complicated (because it reflects access legislation in the UK and worldwide), but I’d like to help to make sure it’s correct here.

In order for me to do that, I’ll need to know more about the specific routing problem and problematic apps, as well as what the intended access is for the driveway and footpath. As I understand it from your comments, the driveway is accessible to customers in vehicles and on foot, and the footpath is accessible to customers on foot. Both are not meant to be used by non-customers. Is that correct?

Thanks :)

Hiya, thanks for your updates around Forton recently. Can you please clarify what’s happening with this bus stop? Is it temporarily out of service, or has it been permanently removed? It’s currently still listed on several bus routes (40, 41, 42). Ta

Oops, thanks for fixing that :)

Heya, I think there might be a typo in the new cuisine value. Did you intend to add ‘drinks’ or something like that?

I’ve tweaked the outdoor_seating for the Cornish Bakery in osm.org/changeset/159516980 to try and distinguish between ‘fixed’ outdoor seating (like a beer garden or yard) and the more seasonal seating I think the Cornish Bakery has (in the street). Let me know if you think that’s a bad idea

Thanks! I had a brief look through the window of the Brown Cow and couldn’t see a yard, but I should have checked harder.

Heya, thanks for this. I’m not so sure about the tagging of Kinsey Cave as an area which is a cave entrance, so I’ve changed it to natural=cave and tweaked the heritage tagging in osm.org/changeset/159505778. Take a look and let me know if you think I’ve made a mistake, thanks!

If you disagree with my edits, please engage in discussion about them, as I have been trying to do with you:
- osm.org/changeset/159067050
- osm.org/changeset/159073174

Calling them ‘vandalism’ is, I think, attributing malice to me where there is none.

As I put in the changeset comment for osm.org/changeset/159358834, I removed these speed limits to prompt a re-survey, because I believe you did not survey this speed limit, and the limit looks potentially incorrect (all other nearby residential roads are 20mph).

If you can show you’ve surveyed it (a recent photo of the entrance to the road where a speed limit sign would be would suffice), then that would be great.

As it is, you’ve been making mass edits (osm.org/changeset/159058612, osm.org/changeset/159067914, osm.org/changeset/159497487, etc.) without providing any sources for your data.

This has resulted in several demonstrably wrong speed limits or access tagging (fixes for them in osm.org/changeset/159320399, osm.org/changeset/159237475, osm.org/changeset/159072623, osm.org/changeset/158966610).
Having incorrect data like this in the OSM database is worse than having no data, as fewer people will question data which is present vs data which is missing. Missing data prompts people to survey it using tools like StreetComplete. Resurveying existing data is less common.

As someone with over 8000 edits to their name, I would hope you’d picked up best practices like providing sources and writing relevant changeset comments by now. (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments)

Please start to provide sources for your data, and engage in discussion with the rest of the community you’re participating in. If you have a disagreement about my edits, raise it with me — or if you don’t want to do that, then raise it with the Data Working Group (osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group).
If you continue to make mass edits, without providing sources, around the area of the north west which I am familiar with, I will be reporting your edits to the DWG, as I have lost trust in your sourcing for them. In that case, some form of mediation and escalation from them might be necessary.

Diversion finally removed in osm.org/changeset/159414837 (oops, we forgot to update it sooner!)

After looking at this edit in a bit more detail, I have a few questions:

1. Why change osm.org/way/1028435029 from residential to construction? Someone else edited it only a month ago and it looks like the estate is now mostly constructed and occupied (look at Mapbox imagery). I’ve changed it back in osm.org/changeset/159360711.

2. You added building=yes to various buildings in Blackpool which were already correctly tagged with building:part=yes. See osm.wiki/Key:building:part for how building parts are tagged. I’ve removed the new building=yes tags in osm.org/changeset/159360491.

3. Why did you delete several houses (like osm.org/way/1304243429) in Middlesbrough? They appear under construction on Esri imagery. I’ve re-added them in osm.org/changeset/159360654.

Thanks

Hiya, thanks for this edit. In future can you please split edits by geographical area? This edit covers most of the north of England, but actually only touches four cities. It should have been four changesets instead. This allows local editors to more easily check edits in their area.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for more information

Thanks!

Other nearby residential roads are 20mph, so it’s possible that Mears Beck Close is also 20mph. The only way to be sure is to survey, which is easy enough to do with StreetComplete.

Perhaps the edging stones were deliberately left in place to act as lane markings for the shared use pavement. It looks that way to me.

If there’s no cycle lane here, what tagging would you choose to represent the demarcated shared use pavement at the side of the roadway, which is not physically separated from it?

Haha, I (and several others) keep an eye on all the edits in the NW. Mostly to catch spam/vandalism, but also to correct errors and mistakes from creeping into the map. It’s a lot easier to fix stuff when it’s changed rather than years down the line!

No problem. Sorry for all the technical detail — imagery alignment is unfortunately a necessary evil when adding a lot of geometry on the map.

> Did you correct here, or do I need to revert?

I corrected it here (and on your other edits where similar things have happened). :)

Heya :) It depends a bit on what the facility is, but generally the approach is to have an area which forms the outline of the facility, and that has the tagging on it for the facility itself. So in the case of a complex train station, it’s recommended there’s an area which encompasses the whole passenger-accessible part of the station, and that contains tags like the station name and operator. Buildings within that area are tagged only with building-specific properties, such as the number of storeys they have and their material.

The wiki has some good examples: osm.wiki/Railway_stations and it’ll probably also have examples for other large common facilities.

I hope that helps? Happy to answer questions if it doesn’t!

Thanks, that makes sense. The ROW order only refers to public footpaths (not BOATs or any wider permissions), so I’ve changed it to access=private foot=designated, which is the most specific tagging for a private farm track which is a designated footpath.

I’ve also added designation=public_footpath as per osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths

Changes in osm.org/changeset/159262334, let me know if there’s any problems with them

Thanks!