Thanks 👍

Heya, wrt osm.org/node/3071545092, mapping a cattle grid and adjacent gate as one node is a pattern which National Trust have been using quite a lot in their recent edits to add walking routes in the area.

If it’s something which you think should be strongly avoided, you might want to drop user NTTrailsLSE a message and work out an alternate tagging scheme with them. :)

Thanks :)

> OSM not based on what you see on the ground?

Yes, but because of the rights of way laws in the UK defining RoWs as not necessarily the same as paths on the ground, the Definitive Map also has to be used to feed in to the OSM mapping.

Navigation apps should factor in the trail_visibility=no hint and ford=yes and weight their routing so it goes over the bridge rather than the ford.

In some cases, people have re-tagged historical footpaths (which are still legal rights of way) as disused:highway=footway, and kept the designation=public_footpath and foot=designated tagging.

I’m a bit hesitant about that here because there’s not going to be any physical sign of the ford across the Kent even if it’s commonly used. It’s a limestone-bedded river, so there will be no ruts in the riverbed. But if you’re certain the ford is completely out of use (rather than only occasionally used) then please go ahead and change the tagging to disused:highway=footway.

Hiya, thanks for checking this. The path is still a legal right of way (according to the Rights of Way overlay) so needs to be mapped, as it indicates a legal crossing of the river.

I’ve re-added it in osm.org/changeset/168390611, but changed it to trail_visibility=no to reflect your survey

Thanks

Thanks for your reply :)

It’s interesting that all the imagery aligned with each other, but the Cadastral Parcels (or a high-accuracy GPS trace) are the source of ground truth for the UK, as they’re higher precision (and hence easier to align to) than aerial imagery.

It might be that Horton has a systematic parallax error in aerial imagery due to its altitude or the fact it’s in a fairly narrow valley.

I’ve reverted it as osm.org/changeset/168352371

👍

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/168177440 because you’re still applying ID’s suggested edits without checking them.

Please reply to my messages and we can sort this out :)

Heya, thanks for updating this. Is the shop at osm.org/way/1409828650 really called Haltwhistle shop, or is that a copy/paste error?

I’ve reverted this as osm.org/changeset/168115080 because it, like several of your edits before, contained several cases of applying suggested edits without doing even basic checks on them.

Hiya, did you align the aerial imagery before realigning all the geometry here? The Bing aerial imagery is offset by about -3.15,0.47m in the middle of Horton, compared to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels (ground truth).

It looks like you’ve broken the alignment of the Gray Bridge, which I had carefully aligned in https://osmcha.org/changesets/167095100. It’s possible I made a mistake with the alignment, so I’d like to check with you. Thanks.

The Castle Pub in Cockermouth is not brand Q133280052.

You need to verify suggested edits before applying them.

I have fixed this in osm.org/changeset/168092430

Please stop applying automated tagging fixes without checking them. You broke the tagging on four things in Keswick, which I have fixed in osm.org/changeset/168092004 and osm.org/changeset/168091792

See osm.wiki/Automated_edits

I believe I’ve mentioned on your edits before. If you carry on doing it, and don’t reply, the next step will be for me to raise it with the DWG (osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group).

Thanks

What’s the source for this? The new roads don’t appear in any aerial imagery. Thanks :)

Tagged as selling maps in osm.org/changeset/167771810, thanks

Heya, what’s the vending machine? It’s currently placed in the middle of a car parking aisle (I realise placing things accurately with Every Door is tricky!)

I think the POI is in the right place. It was probably the door you saw — it’s a gig bar which is only open in the evenings, so unless you were surveying then it won’t have been obvious.

Marked as open again in osm.org/changeset/167690138

Heya, thanks for the updates. Are you sure that Ruskins (osm.org/node/6020071092) is closed though? I’ve seen events advertised by them recently.

https://www.facebook.com/Ruskinskendal

I’ve changed it to match the geograph images in osm.org/changeset/167419517. If you did survey it and I’ve made a mistake, please say and I can update or revert my edit.

If you didn’t survey it, then please stop doing MapRoulette challenges without doing any research.

Hiya, I’m not sure what you’re trying to do, but this is nowhere near a correct resolution for the footpath issue here.

The footpath looks like it runs on the road, so should be a section of the road (with appropriate access tagging) rather than a parallel way. The stream runs further to the north (see OS OpenMap imagery) where the obvious bridge is in the aerial imagery.

Very few things ever need to be tagged as layer=3.

It looks like you’re just clicking ‘resolve’ on all the issues which RapID finds in the area and then moving on to the next challenge. That’s totally not the point of MapRoulette challenges; you’re supposed to be trying to make the map better on a case-by-case basis, not zipping through to get all the points in the minimum time.

Apologies if I’ve misinterpreted what you’re doing here, but from the viewpoint of someone reviewing edits in the area, that’s what your pattern of editing looks like.

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/167419168