Why change Hall Hill from natural=peak to place=locality? It’s a small hill: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7454714

Hiya, thanks for these updates to Kentmere! When editing, please remember to keep the history (osm.wiki/Keep_the_history), so rather than deleting and re-drawing Kentmere Tarn, it would have been better to modify the existing area. This preserves the record of other people’s contributions to the area.

I’ve restored the history while keeping your updated geometry in osm.org/changeset/161582135, but it was quite a complex process. Let me know if anything in that changeset doesn’t look right.

I’ve re-added and re-tagged them in osm.org/changeset/161568957

Hiya, instead of deleting the areas for the cut forests south of Cowgill, it would have been better to change their tagging to man_made=clearcut (osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dclearcut). That renders them as clearcut on the map (which is useful for navigation when walking) and avoids losing the history of other people’s contributions to that bit of the map.

Fun times 🙃

Thanks, that was in Middlesbrough right? There seem to be some changes in Swansea too, meaning this changeset spans most of England

What change were you making here? There’s no changeset comment. :)

Hi again, and thanks again for trying to make sure the map around your area is correct :)

Can you please confirm what kind of way this is? Is it possible to drive a vehicle up it (with permission)? If so, it should remain mapped as highway=service. highway=path is only for footpaths (i.e. not physically possible to drive a vehicle up them). From the aerial imagery it looks like this is a driveway, not a footpath.

The access tagging (access=private) already looks correct for this way to mark it as private (to all: vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, horses, etc.).

If that’s all the case, it sounds like All Trails may have given you incorrect advice. Would you be able to summarise the conversation you had with them and what advice was given?

What’s mapped in OpenStreetMap needs to reflect what’s on the ground in reality. Changing something which is mapped as a driveway to being mapped as a path might fix routing issues on some clients for now, but if it represents a driveway in reality, someone is going to come along and change it (in good faith) back to being a driveway on the map in future. We need to get to the bottom of the routing issues.

Do you know what map software is routing people incorrectly along this way?

Thanks, and happy new year :)

Great, thanks :)

Heya, the access=private tagging on osm.org/way/500401928 was probably correct, and the error there was the missing foot=designated + designation=public_footpath tagging.

access=private sets the default access, which in this case would affect the access for vehicles. foot=designated would then override that for pedestrians.

It looks like a private drive, so I suggest the correct tagging is: access=private + foot=designated + designation=public_footpath.

Hiya, does the Travelodge definitely have a storey in the roof? They didn’t last time I visited (and there are no skylights in the latest aerial imagery), so I guess some building work must have happened recently? Ta

Hiya, what was your source for this information?

Some of the nodes have an addr:housename which looks unlikely (e.g. osm.org/node/2114551305) and I’d like to double check them.

Thanks :)

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for the edits you’ve made recently around Hornby :)

It looks like you’re quite keen to tackle bigger changes. There are a couple of things you should probably be aware of first:

1. There’s a tagging scheme for farmland which differentiates between pasture (grazing), uncultivated hay fields, and higher productivity ryegrass hay/sileage fields. While it can be a bit hard to tell the usage of a field from aerial imagery (and they do change over time), if you have some local knowledge it should be possible to tag a field appropriately for its predominant use. See osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse

Your username suggests you know a thing or two about farming. Is that the case? :) If so it would be wonderful to have your input.

2. The aerial imagery is unfortunately not perfectly aligned to ground truth. If you’re going to add significant new amounts of geometry, or realign existing geometry, please check the imagery is aligned before starting. Turn on the ‘OSMUK Cadastral Parcels’ overlay in the ‘Background Settings’ on the right, and adjust the ‘Imagery Offset’ until the aerial imagery matches the Cadastral Parcels in a few key areas. I find fence junctions or house boundaries are easy to align.

The alignment is normally up to about 2m out in either direction in this area of the North West, and it varies by area, so needs to be re-aligned every time you start editing a new area.

I think the alignment for Hornby itself is 0.14,-1 with the current Bing imagery.

I hope that makes sense, and sorry to introduce this all at once — I just wanted to make you aware of it before you create loads of fields which are all misaligned from ground truth! Happy to answer questions if you have any :)

Looks good, thanks for taking the time to sort this out :)

No worries, I’ve made the same mistake before. :) Good to know things are working for you now.

Just to check: were you using OsmAnd+’s vehicle routing mode, or its pedestrian routing mode? I just tried with pedestrian routing mode and it plotted the route along this path fine.

It looks like an oversight that the other part was not also marked as access=private. I’ve fixed that, thanks.

I’m not sure what you mean by Track #143420491. Could you link to it please? (Right-click on the map and choose ‘Query features’.)

Hiya, thanks for trying to improve the map!

Unfortunately your change here is not correct: the access=private tag sets the default tagging (including access for vehicles, bikes, horses, etc.), and the foot=designated tag then takes priority over that, so this path was already correctly marked as accessible to the public on foot.

See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths and osm.wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions for more information.

What was it that brought you here trying to change this particular path? Is something not working somewhere else? Ta

Thanks for the fast reply. Playgrounds reverted in osm.org/changeset/160500411#map=9/54.822/-4.573 :)

Hiya, did you survey the two play areas (osm.org/way/1079118850, osm.org/way/1158458980)? Play area surfacing is complicated, and can’t be worked out from aerial imagery. I don’t think those values should be changed unless you’ve surveyed them in person.

Heya, thanks for editing the map. Do you know if the footpath runs down the driveway on the north side of that house (osm.org/way/387064262)? If not, how does it connect through to the road? The official rights of way overlay suggests the footpath officially runs round the south side of the house, but presumably it’s been re-routed around the house recently? Ta :)