Sure, changed in osm.org/changeset/170287522

Hiya, welcome back to OpenStreetMap. A reminder that you need to state sources when editing, otherwise others have no hope of verifying your edits. This applies to everybody.

The source for this kind of edit could be ‘survey’ or ‘Mapillary imagery’ or ‘Bing Streetside’, for example, if those are the sources you used.

You can list the sources for an edit in the ‘Sources’ box just below the changeset comment when you upload an edit.

See osm.wiki/Verifiability and osm.wiki/Key:source

Heya, even if this path is blocked on the ground, it still exists as a legal right of way (it’s on the definitive map of rights of way for the area), so should be mapped.

If it’s blocked in reality, that needs to be reported to the council’s rights of way department: go to https://www.cumberland.gov.uk/parks-culture-and-leisure/countryside-access and click ‘Make an enquiry about public rights of way’

Fantastic (and thanks for all the other high-quality edits you’ve made in the area recently; I hope you had a nice time :)

Nice work, thanks :)

I’ve updated the tagging here as I suggested above, in osm.org/changeset/169978801

The signage differs (‘except for access’ / ‘except for loading’) at the two ends and I’ve arbitrarily picked the latter for the tagging (meaning maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery) as that’s more common throughout Lancaster.

I’ve reworked the tagging on Bulk Road in osm.org/changeset/169978440 to use the updated maxweightrating:hgv and maxweightrating:hgv:conditional tagging, and also to extent the restricted area to the Factory Hill junction, where there’s another restriction sign (see Bing Streetside imagery).

ah, and now having read osm.org/changeset/169801885, I’ve changed it to maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery in osm.org/changeset/169978175

I’ve reverted this change as osm.org/changeset/169978022, and added the missing maxweightrating:conditional=none @ destination tagging.

For this road, the signage is visible on Bing Streetside at the Owen Road/Lune Street junction.

The ‘Public Rights of Way’ overlay in ID (see Overlays in the Background Settings pane on the right) shows it’s a footpath (green line). It does show the footpath starting from the house’s driveway at the northern end, though. Perhaps that’s why the gate’s locked, and that end of the path needs tweaking on OSM?

Heya, are you sure Brierholme guest house is trading? They were removed from the map by (I think) the owners last year (osm.org/changeset/152038550) and their website says they’ve closed (https://www.brierholme.co.uk/).

(For anyone reading this in future, this edit is in response to osm.org/changeset/169802057)

(The update was done as osm.org/changeset/169808418, for reference)

Thanks, both of you, for looking at this. I believe there’s another sign about the restriction at the Caspian Way/Ashton Road mini-roundabout, which would mean that the entire section which IvaKraljić tagged should be tagged with some kind of maxweight tags, I believe. Not just the section nearest the A6 crossroads.

I suspect the weight restriction is for the benefit of the Piccadilly Lane and Ashford Road bridges.

Heya :) Thanks for explaining things.

I think the reasoning for the consensus in 93427676 still stands, so I’ll revert this changeset (done as osm.org/changeset/169833912).

I acknowledge that multiple access tagging is confusing for routing systems, but foot=yes;discouraged is the best description of this footpath that anyone’s come up with.

I can’t remember if this footpath is physically signposted as discouraged, but other similar tidal walks on the bay are signed that way, and it’s common knowledge that people really should only attempt the walks with a local guide. But legally there’s nothing to stop them having a go themselves.

If, having read 93427676, you can suggest a better tagging scheme which encapsulates all the thoughts mentioned there, then we can surely change all the local tidal footpaths accordingly (not just this one). :)

I hate the fact that people trash bothies, but the information about their locations is public and has been for a long time (each MBA bothy has its own map on the MBA website, for example). Social media is probably more to blame for people trashing them than them being mapped on OSM.

If you’re trying to stop bothies being trashed by removing them from one map, that’s not going to work. That horse has bolted years ago and the stable door is broken.

See discussion on osm.org/changeset/169829036

See discussion on osm.org/changeset/169829036

In changeset 169828708 you deleted Shenavall Bothy, which is on the MBA website. In 169828646 you deleted an emergency shelter which is open to all. In 169827499 you deleted another bothy listed on the MBA website.

Even if OSM was curated to the desires of landowners and estate owners, these things are going to be mapped sooner or later, so the only approach is to make sure their access restrictions are tagged appropriately (i.e. add access=private if they are actually private), not to delete them.
future.

Please also provide a useful description for your changesets. This is a collaborative project, other people need to know your reasoning for making changes. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

I’ve reverted all your changes so far. Please do not delete any more bothies. If tagging is missing/incorrect on private ones then please fix that on a case-by-case basis. The wiki is a good help for appropriate tagging: osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dwilderness_hut

Why are you deleting bothies? Please stop now.