Hiya, did you survey this? Because according to photos on geograph the cycleway (which is on the alignment of the old railway line) goes over the road. They don’t join at the crossing point, though there is a (currently unmapped) link ramp on the south side.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/88976
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/516871

The photos are about 20 years old, so there’s a chance this has changed, but I can’t see why it would change that significantly. Ta

That’s great, thanks very much for taking the time to fix them :)

(For anyone looking at this later, they were fixed as osm.org/changeset/167389712)

Hiya, if you’re going to add lots of buildings, please make sure the aerial imagery is lined up with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before starting. That eliminates any imagery offset error, which varies about 0-3m in both axes across the country. In this bit of Kendal it looks like it’s about 0.09,-0.83m for the Bing imagery, which means these buildings are all about 1m misaligned from ground truth. Thanks :)

the changeset message should read ‘from fell track’ (typo)

Bing offset to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels: -3.64,-0.72, measured in Keswick near the River Greta tunnel portal (from changeset 167155274). Kept the same Bing offset across the edit, so I guess it might have drifted as I headed north west

Bing offset to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels: -3.64,-0.72, measured in Keswick near the River Greta tunnel portal. Kept the same Bing offset across the edit, so I guess it might have drifted as I headed north west

If you’re exporting data from OSM and need to know what’s in the gap then I guess you need to add the highway areas to the map (osm.wiki/Key:area:highway). Mapping the highway area as grass breaks others’ use of the data — for example, someone might use OSM to calculate how much of a town is green space, and having the grass mapped that way would significantly overcount its area.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean about footpaths (if you could link to an example that would be helpful), but it sounds like you’re talking about the links which make the footpath network routable. If the footpath centrelines aren’t joined to the road centrelines at crossings, then routing can’t work. The section of footpath which is on the road area can be tagged with footway=link (or highway=crossing if it’s a designated crossing) to differentiate it from the section above the kerb.

Nice work! :D

Thanks for the clarification, and for taking the time to update the map :)

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/167085620 and osm.org/changeset/167085679.

Heya, do you know if this is a temporary closure, or a permanent one?

If it’s a temporary closure then I’ll reinstate the footpath geometry on OSM and tag it as temporarily closed, so it’s easier to re-add it to the map when it’s reopened.

As I think you’ve found, adding too many landuse=grass areas can be a bit much!

landuse=grass is meant for areas which are just grass and have no other use, such as verges, central reservations, etc. — see osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass

In most other cases, it’s better to tag the area for its use (e.g. cemetery) and then add surface=grass or landcover=grass to refine the rendering. (Sometimes it won’t change the rendering, but the data will be there at least.)

Hope that makes sense, it’s a little bit fiddly :)

aah, I see you already added the nodes in osm.org/changeset/167050170 (which I just looked at after this changeset). Nice work!

Another nice edit, it’s nice to see some historic detail being added!

A note about gates: they should be drawn in the closed position (even if they’re normally open), and need a node in the middle which is also tagged as barrier=gate. See osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dgate#On_a_way

It seems a bit duplicative to me to need a node and a way to map the extent of a gate, but that’s what the wiki says so I go with that :)

Noticed on these gates, for example: osm.org/way/1391360518 osm.org/way/1391360510

Why? Is the house name incorrect?

Nice work :)

Great, thanks for taking the time to check :)

Please don’t “remove unnecessary detail”. One person’ ‘unnecessary detail’ is another person’s pet project. As long as the detail is correct, it should stay. :)

Hi Kaduna, thanks for taking the time to check other sources and adjust the tagging again :)

I agree a survey would be the best next thing to do, to verify the ground truth. I’ll open a note here, which should pop up if someone’s surveying the area (e.g. with StreetComplete).

Hope you have a good day :)

For anyone looking at this in future, please see the discussion on osm.org/changeset/166869616