Please don’t connect ways (like this one osm.org/way/118865778) to the centreline of the roads, it makes future edits harder (the rec and road can’t be edited separately) and it’s not correct (the rec stops at the kerb, not the centreline of the road).

Oh dear. Unfortunately, that’s not allowed by the licensing terms of Google’s imagery — see osm.wiki/Google. If OSM had a license to use that updated imagery, it would probably be available in ID already.

Unfortunately, I think that means this changeset is going to have to be reverted, unless you can point to an alternate source which corroborates the changes? We can’t have copyrighted data in OSM as it’s incompatible with the license, and opens the dataset up to copyright infringement claims. :(

None of this is visible on Bing aerial imagery in ID as far as I can see — where are you getting updated imagery from? I’m interested to use it, thanks.

Heya, are you sure about this; what’s your source?

If this bit of parking aisle is one-way, then why is there a ‘no entry’ marking on the road where the give way node is (osm.org/node/9366722074)? It wouldn’t be necessary if this bit of parking aisle was one-way.

In addition, if this bit of parking aisle was one-way, the accessible parking space (osm.org/way/1384940581) would only be reachable by doing a lap of the building, which seems unlikely (but possible).

I’ve not surveyed, I’m only going off aerial imagery — so if you’ve surveyed it I’ll definitely defer to you. I just wanted to check :)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for the detailed house name additions here.

I guess you might be the person who’s been leaving notes in Portinscale over the last few days. If so, thanks for taking the time to register and add more detail to the map! If you have any questions after going through the welcome tutorial then feel free to message me and I can try and help out.

Since you haven’t replied with any more information, I’ve re-added the Wasdale shuttlebus in osm.org/changeset/166562208

Why have you deleted the Wasdale shuttlebus route? As far as I understand it *is* running this year: https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/plan-your-visit/getting-to-the-lake-district/wasdale-shuttlebus

Please also provide a more detailed changeset comment than just “Fix Bus Routes”. This changeset deletes two bus routes rather than fixing them, and just saying ‘fix’ doesn’t provide anyone else with any information about what was wrong with them. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

Ah, that makes sense. Can you point me to the discussion/issue report about getting the renderer fixed please?

You can see the superroute relation here: osm.org/relation/4080347

Heya, thanks for adding the ID, but it’s actually already correctly set on the superroute relation which links all these route relations. The wikidata ID for the entire Pennine Way isn’t quite correct to use on individual parts of the route, so I’ve undone this change (osm.org/changeset/166220709)

I should also mention: many Ordnance Survey maps are not suitable for use as data sources for OSM. Only the OS OpenData StreetView and OS OpenMap Local ones have a compatible license. They are available as layers in the ID Editor (see the background panel on the right).

In particular, OS 1:25k and 1:50k mapping is not permissible as a source for OSM, as the license is incompatible.

See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence for more information.

Hiya, and welcome to OSM. It’s good to see you’re enthusiastic about fixing problems in the map, but I’ve had to undo this edit. Changing road classifications is quite a major change to the map, and changing over 100 of them at once makes it impossible for anyone else to check what you’ve done. Road classifications in OSM are not just copied blindly from Ordnance Survey, they’re based on local surveying (e.g. the colour of trunk road signs) and road size and features.

If you’d like to make changes like this in future, please make smaller edits and provide local justification for each change (it doesn’t have to be an essay, but a brief location-specific comment in your changeset message is needed). Otherwise it’s easy to introduce mistakes into the map.

Thanks, happy to answer any questions :)

Perhaps location:transition=yes? Presumably it’s a pole mounted transformer with both primary and secondary cables underground?

I’ve changed the access permissions on the track to remove permissive access for motor vehicles in osm.org/changeset/165972109, as I guess you intended to mark it as a permissive alternative to the bridleway, not something that anybody is allowed to drive their car down.

Please let me know if that’s not correct (and please try to leave more descriptive changeset comments in future so this kind of guesswork isn’t needed! See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments)

Thanks!

Hiya, if you’re going to add lots of new buildings to places in the UK, please make sure to align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before you start editing. The imagery offset is around -4.13, -0.29m here, so you’re adding the buildings 4m in the wrong place. See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Align_aerial_imagery_before_tracing

Thanks

Permissive access for whom? Is it meant to be permissive access for pedestrians to the end of the track, or permissive access for any vehicles to park in the farmyard, or something else?

Hiya, can you clarify what ‘unpaved_tarmac’ is as a surface? Tarmac is considered to be a paved surface (and is conventionally tagged as surface=asphalt on OpenStreetMap), so the tagging you’ve used seems a little confusing here. Thanks!

Heya, can you give more detail about what access=no is meant to mean here? Has the swimming pool closed down, or been demolished, or something else? access=no by itself is a bit cryptic! :)

Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like a very useful project!

Have you considered using an app like StreetComplete (https://streetcomplete.app/) locally to help surveying the paths once an initial version of them is in place on OSM? I find it’s useful for recording detail on the ground easily and correctly. I realise you may have evaluated it and come up with a different strategy though.

What you say makes sense about the name tagging, thanks for the explanation. The use of name= and loc_name= like that makes sense to me!

Regarding start and end points, it should be possible to derive the grid reference / address / etc. of the start and end points programmatically when you pull a route into your website, by looking at the start and end nodes of the ordered list of ways in the route relation, and then reverse-geocoding them using standard tools. It might get a bit complex for routes which aren’t a simple loop or linear route, but that should be possible to tag by setting the route member roles correctly (osm.wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking#Roles).

I guess you’re in good contact with someone at OSM UK already who can help you with tagging guidance, so I’ll leave those suggestions with you and shut up now :) Have a good day!

Hiya, thanks for your message (and sorry I didn’t message you; I should have, I was responding to edits in a rush between other work).

What exactly was intended with the name:en/loc_name tagging? It looks like it’s just naming one of the geographical features on the route. Is that name used in a particular way on the NT webpages for each route, or something? I feel like I’m missing some context :)

Thanks for your work on this, it’s nice to see the NT continuing to embrace OSM for more and more things :D