Were you able to walk this path? I have tried several times, but it was always overgrown and indistinct. Has it now been improved?

I need to check, but these are gated access roads to parts of the Farm Museum. We would not normally map them.

This is a private drive. We do not normally map these in the UK unless they are particularly long or are significant in some other way. At least you have now added the right access, but where is the remotely controlled gate?

Actually, the stones in the centre are smaller than most of those on the circumference.

I did consider historic=stone, but I tend to use that for much younger pillars. Last century and even medieval, but not for archeological stuff. So I have tagged several stones on the moor that way but they are maybe only one or two hundred years old. So history rather than prehistory. Hence my choice which I think is reasonable among the existing tags.

Actually, at least one of the stones maybe rather modern. There was some reconstuction in the 1930's and it think at least one of the stones may have been replaced.

OK. There is no need to remove embankments if you have good evidence for them. It is only the ficticious ones that we worry about.

As for erasing history, you managed to do that when you replaced, rather than moved, the 'stones'. The Hurlers stones are not very large and I wasn't entirely comfortable with tagging them as megalith_type=menhir, but that seemed the nearest match, and indicated an ancient artifact. It all depends on how big something has to be to qualify as "mega".

If you are interested in this site, by far the best online source is http://readingthehurlers.co.uk/ . I know several of the people involved in that excavation.

Thank for reverting this. However, a quick glance at your other edits suggest that you have done similar things at other sites in the UK, and perhaps further afield.

Presumably you have no local knowledge and have not surveyed these sites either?

If that is so, please also revert those changes also unless you are quite certain that you have more accurate information. I see embankments again which are also perhaps ficticious. And it looks as if you may have erased history as well.

First, the previous answer, with which I agree, was not from me.

What you are doing is "tagging for the renderer" which degrades the map. We take enormous care to map accurately what is on the ground, and not invent fiction to make the map "look" right. As SomeoneElse says, if you want a particular display, then you should be either write your own renderer, or ask the authors of an existing renderer to modify their code. You should not tamper with the existing tagging where you have not surveyed the site yourself unless you have excellent copyright free objective information which is obviously better than the existing state.

In this case, SomeoneElse already has a renderer which did what you wanted.

If you had looked at the history and checked the public gps traces, you would see that this is a very thoroughly mapped site.

In this case the individual stones were linked by a way tagged as megalith_type=stone circle. That was there partly so renderers could display something suitable. And it was a reasonable thing to include even though the only marks on the ground are a only few indications of wear.

The fact that there may be some historic maps that just happen to show stone circles that coincide with what one particular renderer uses for an embankment is supremely irrelevant.

An embankment always involves at least a change in height, and these stone circles are on a very flat area.

I am also extremely unhappy that you have removed information from the information for the individual stones.

The name and source have been removed. I have repeatedly taken multiple averaged gps waypoints on most, if not all, of the individual stones. Removing tags like that is just vandalism.

Even worse, you have *changed* those accurate coordinates. Frankly, how dare you? Where did you get better coodinates? What is the point is my contributing many hours and accurate information, just to have someone throw it away?

I see that you have made similar edits to other historic sites of which you would seem to have no knowledge. Unless you can justify them , I believe that you should revert those as well.

What embankment? I know this area very well and have extensively surveyed here. There is no embankment.

Please explain your source. I think this should be reverted.

OK, Untagged way fixed. It was a parking place.

Oh, err. An untagged way :-) I don't know why the josm validator didn't object. But it sometimes flags up spurious stuff which I ignore, so perhaps this slipped through.

Kit HIll was in a bit of a mess before this set of edits, and I may have been a bit overwhelmed. Fortunately I have kept the gps-enabled dashcam videos as well as the additional accurate gps tracks, so I should be able to look into what went wrong.

I will see if I can find time to fix this later this evening, 'flu-like bug permitting :-)

Feel free too flag up any other rubbish. But the validator should pick up any other problems. IIRC, there were many warnings from previous mapping that I hadn't surveyed, so in the main left alone.

Weird. I have absolutely no idea how that happened. Maybe I accidentally dragged the node in josm and didn't notice, but why just that point?
I wasn't even mapping in that area.

Actually, josm thinks that I moved it by 1.51km!

I have put it back almost exactly where it was, but I must say that it does not look like a photovoltaic panel to me. Much more like a evacuated tube thermal solar panel(s). At least on the Clarity beta image. On the ordinary Esri image it looks more extended, so there it looks more like a possible photovoltaic panel array.
I leave it to you to decide whether to change it to a thermal solar generator, depending on which imagery you believe.

I am really embarrassed by this mistake, and worried that there could have been others. I am impressed that you picked it up.

I think that edit was from a long series, and maybe I was just tired and somehow missed the problem.

There is a reason that 692622291 was not mapped before. It is private property with a gate, belonging to a single property. Unless it is exceptionally large or significant, we would not normally map such private drives in the UK. Partly a matter of privacy.

If you look at the number of local gps traces, you should be able to deduce that there is very active mapping in this areas, and such features are unlikely to have been missed.

Well, I guess that a u-turn is probably covered on a strict interpretation. But double solid lines in the UK are primarily aimed at stopping dangerous overtaking. Well, white ones, anyway.

This is just a normal turning with no particular restrictions.

No, the highway code permits crossing double solid lines to turn into a side road: you seem to have overlooked this part of the sentence:
"unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road."

I hope you haven't applied this to other places in the UK: it would make routing almost impossible over much of the country!

There is also a sign post at the junction which again would be a bit silly if one could not turn there.

There *is* a missing turn restriction for Tideford Road which I will add soon. Maybe the "driver" confused the turnings?

But this turn restriction isn't there as far as I can see. I drive along this road regularly, usually with a geotagged dashcam running. I have just carefully checked the video taken last week, and there is no restriction turning right into Tredinnick Lane when travelling East on the A38.

I have also checked dashcam video taken in January travelling West, and again there are no turn restrictions on the A38.

I haven't surveyed along Tredinnick Lane: I suppose that there could be a "No right turn" sign when joining the A38, although the dashcam video shows the sign at the end of the lane, and there is no restriction there, so I think that too is not the case.

So I don't know what this "driver's feedback" is, but it seems to be objectively wrong.

I was looking on The Esri (clarity) Beta. But I just checked the ordinary Esri and yes it is there. It didn't occur to me that the "clarity" version could be old.

As you say, it must be hidden very well by hedges. I have two videos going past in both directions and I looked very carefully. But Cornish hedges tend to be high :-)

I don't think that the solar farm at Mendennick actually exists.

At least I can see no sign on two video surveys driving past on the B3247 yesterday, and I also can't see anything on ESRI imagery.

Should this be a proposed solar farm? I even looked on Bing, an alleged source, and saw nothing.

Should it not be deleted or changed to something like proposed_power?
I could not even see any signs of construction, although I might have missed that.

You are right. I examined the video again very carefully and the blue arrow signs are still there. Not the sort of sign that I was expecting, and very indistinct on the video.

So I will put the oneway back again.
Sorry about the noise: I find so many mistakes in tagging around Cornwall, mainly from armchair mappers that I tend to assume the worst :-)

There are no one signs at the intersection with the A390.
I know the A390, have dashcam video and gps. So I have removed the oneway tag from way 38033541.
Perhaps there is some section that does need a oneway tag?