Nice!

Thanks for fixing it!

(Fixed in osm.org/changeset/170782235, for anyone reading this in future)

Heya, thanks for these improvements!

I noticed that osm.org/way/26486939 is part of the walking route, but it has a note (from before your changes) which says “closed to the public since 2007”, and its access tagging is private. Is it open again, and does the access tagging need updating? Thanks :)

Heya, thanks for these updates, this looks like a nice new route.

One question — did you intend to change the speed limit on osm.org/way/42862328 from 20mph to 50? That looks a bit unlikely for a residential road. Ta :)

What are your sources?

What are your sources? Two other people have surveyed this pavement/cycle path in person and cannot work out whether it’s meant to be a cycle path or pedestrian only. Please share where you’re getting your information from.

Sounds good to me, thanks for checking :)

For cropland, allowing for the margins is probably the right approach if they’re big margins, or if they contain vastly different things from what’s in the field (like trees or scrub). I’m used to mapping mostly sheep pasture, where there are no margins!

If the fields are used in rotation there’s no great answer. You could either invent some tags to describe the rotation, or tag the fields as they’re seen in aerial imagery. That will at least give a snapshot of the rotation at one point in time, which is likely representative of the bigger picture.

Cheers :)

I’ve made my suggested changes in osm.org/changeset/170695530. Please say if you think they’re not correct, thanks

Heya, thanks for your edits around here recently.

Did you spot the second Marl Hill, just to the east? osm.org/node/29544795

Do you know which one is the real summit? OpenTopoMap shows them both with the same number of contour lines, which isn’t much help.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your edits around Langwathby recently. :)

If you’re going to be adding a lot of farmland, it would be good to use the tagging scheme for farmland in the north of England, which differentiates between arable crops, high yield grass, and pasture. See osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse

Note that you probably also want to join the polygons for adjacent fields together.

You may also want to turn the ‘Cadastral Parcels’ layer on (in ‘Overlays’ under ‘Background Settings’ on the right) and ensure the aerial imagery is aligned to it. I think the alignment offset for around Langwathby is (0,0), but it can vary from area to area, by up to about 3m in each dimension. This is due to parallax error (and other errors) in the aerial imagery. The cadastral parcels can otherwise also help with getting the boundaries for woods right, where they’re obscured by branches.

Hope that makes sense, happy to answer any questions if you have them :)

Heya, thanks for your contributions to Kendal recently. Adding hundreds of buildings which are wonky and not split correctly (semis/terraces) is not actually that helpful for the map, as someone will have to come along and split them up and square them in future (which is actually more work than drawing them from scratch!).

Could you take a bit more time to add the buildings so they match the aerial imagery more closely, please? :) If you turn on the ‘Cadastral Parcels’ layer, and align the aerial imagery to it, that gives information about how buildings are split into semis/terraces too. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks :)

Hiya, did you know you can press the ‘Q’ key when a building is selected, to automatically make its corners square? It can help with drawing accurate building outlines. :)

Hiya, did you survey this?

I removed the speed limit (in osm.org/changeset/170433735) because your previous changes to it were contradictory, and given your previous editing behaviour I am not convinced you’re surveying the things you’re editing. I would absolutely love to be wrong about this.

Removing the latest update to the speed limit would have allowed to be resurveyed in-person using an app like StreetComplete.

I commented on osm.org/changeset/170150037 to remind you of the need for sources, although I omitted to mention this road specifically.

Have you surveyed it? And are you going to mention your sources for each changeset in future, as was requested by the DWG when you were previously banned? And are you going to apologise for calling my edits ‘vandalism’, as asked to by the DWG?

Hiya, this post box is a duplicate of one which is already mapped. I’ve deleted it (in osm.org/changeset/170589310), but can you please be more careful not to add duplicate stuff to the map? Thanks, and happy editing :)

Heya, thanks for improving the map around Grasmere. osm.org/way/4232377 is a public highway, leading to multiple designated public footpaths. What did you mean by foot=destination tagging on it? Did you mean foot=designated?

Also, you added motor_vehicle=no to the track osm.org/way/1207896511, but motor_vehicle=no means it’s physically impassible to all motor vehicles (even with permission). Did you mean motor_vehicle=private?

Thanks :)

Nice work! Thanks for digging into this

> Does that change how we tag it?

I’m not sure, this is an interesting situation. I can see the arguments for tagging the two halves of the crossing differently; but can also see the arguments for tagging them both as traffic light controlled (it just happens that the safe crossing period for the general traffic lane is basically only the length of the amber on any of the parts of the light sequence).

Maybe tagging the two halves differently would be more representative of people’s actual experience when crossing, i.e. wait for a gap in the traffic and take your chances, rather than waiting for a specific part of the traffic light sequence.

Maybe when The Sail Works is finished, this junction will get reworked a little to improve things for pedestrians!

> As an aside, I think the labelling of Cable Street vs Parliament street is wrong

Agreed. I wonder if it’s actually Parliament Street on both carriageways all the way down to the junction around Sugar House Alley?

Looking at mapillary the only other road sign I can see is one for North Road on the building immediately south of Sugar House Alley (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.05146740053016&lng=-2.797175192922168&z=18.002058557365068&pKey=503566007671134&focus=photo).

I’ve fixed North Road in osm.org/changeset/170343078

Do you want to go ahead and fix Cable Street/Parliament Street to whatever you think is best supported by the evidence?

> I guess there's also the unmarked crossing of Greyhound Bridge Road to the NW of the lights.

Yeah, I think that should be tagged the same as the NE-bound Parliament Street.

On that basis, I think I am leaning towards crossing=traffic_signals, crossing:signals=shared, button_operated=no for all of them, with different values of crossing:markings= for them.

No response ⇒ I guess this can wait until someone next StreetCompletes this area

I’m not sure this is the right tagging, although the topic is a bit fraught. I think these lights are like the ones at Bolton-le-Sands (osm.org/node/10956035839). The crossing is _traffic_ light controlled, in that it’s basically only safe for pedestrians to cross when the traffic lights go red. But there are no _pedestrian_ lights.

So I think this should be crossing=traffic_signals (note ‘traffic’, not ’pedestrian’), but with button_operated=no and crossing:signals=shared.

Unfortunately the wiki doesn’t have an example specifically like this one. The nearest it has is the fifth example on osm.wiki/Key:crossing:signals#Examples

Let me know your thoughts! :)