I’ve changed it back to cables=6 in osm.org/changeset/165568965, since you didn’t reply. Let me know if I’ve made an incorrect assumption. Ta

Should this be cables=6 also? It was cables=6 until osm.org/changeset/165495984, which I think introduced an error due to not splitting the way near Hutton.

Yes, this was surveyed in person using StreetComplete.

What string are you referring to? I have no idea what you’re talking about, sorry.

Hiya, rather than deleting the geometry of something which has been removed, it’s generally better to re-tag it. That keeps the contribution history for the geometry, and means there’s still something mapped for that area.

I’ve done so here in osm.org/changeset/165090495

You can check the orientation of a building like this by right-clicking on it and flipping it along its long axis (then undoing the change). That’ll tell you what OSM thinks the long axis is

I’ve fixed this in osm.org/changeset/164861351

It was meant to be ‘across’, not ‘along’

I’ve fixed those two issues in osm.org/changeset/164861203 and osm.org/changeset/164861007, please reply if I’ve made a mistake

Apparently fixed in osm.org/changeset/164804059, thanks

Hiya, access=customers isn’t quite the right tagging to use for these footpaths, as it implies customers are allowed vehicular (and bicycle, and horse) access on the footpaths.

foot=customers is the right tagging

Hiya, thanks for the attention to detail you’re giving to Leighton Moss.

A few questions on this changeset:

Why delete the residential area around osm.org/way/500763160?

And why change the causeway from bicycle=designated to bicycle=destination? If no through cycling is allowed, that should already be inferred by the router from the fact the path at the eastern end is access=private for bicycles. bicycle=designated is the correct tagging for its legal status as a public bridleway, aiui.

Thanks

I’ve reverted the fence changes as osm.org/changeset/164456662 as it looks like a mass automated edit to apply suggested changes to deprecated tagging without surveying, both due to the fact that fence_type=chain_link is rare here, and a few spot checks I did on these fences using Bing Streetside.

See osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dwire_fence and osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

If I’ve made a mistake, please reply and let me know

Super, thanks! :D

The rest of the shops on the row are just tagged with addr:street=Yewbarrow Terrace, so my first inclination would be to make it consistent with those.

I guess if I was mapping this from scratch, I’d probably tag them all as addr:street=Yewbarrow Terrace addr:parentstreet=Main Street though, given that they are probably primarily addressed as ‘Yewbarrow Terrace’ rather than ‘Main Street’ (hence parentstreet rather than substreet).

Thanks for the updates! The addr:housename=Yewbarrow Terrace on osm.org/node/6486281139 looks a little odd, given that’s the street name. Was that deliberate?

I agree with lakedistrict, and have changed it to access=customers fee=no in osm.org/changeset/164413291

It’s unfortunate that choosing the right answer in StreetComplete for this quest involves knowing what the options it provides translate to in tagging terms.

Yes, if you’re unsure I think it’s always best to add a comment instead, then come back to it in ID later, with the OSM wiki open, and resolve the comment.

Thanks for your surveying! :D

Heya, thanks for your edits around Ambleside recently :)

I’ve fixed the house type tagging here in osm.org/changeset/164386790 — building=terrace is for the outline of an entire row of terraces, not individual houses within a terrace. building=house house=terraced is for that. See osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace

Hiya, thanks for your edits around Cockerham, it’s good to see people adding more detail.

However, please don’t delete existing data when adding detail. It runs the risk of losing tagging data (such as on the parish hall, or the school building), and it deletes the history of other people’s contributions to the map. See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Also, when adding large amounts of geometry, please make sure the aerial imagery is aligned to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before editing, otherwise everything you add will not be aligned to the real world. Aerial imagery changes alignment by a few metres every time it’s updated.

Any questions about either of these things, just ask; I’m happy to help :)

I’ve changed it from bicycle_parking=rack to bicycle_parking=stands in osm.org/changeset/164361852, based on Bing Streetside. Please let me know (or change it back) if I’ve assumed incorrectly, thanks!