Thanks, my bad.

Hi, thanks for the additions.

I'm removing the separate cycle way as cycle lanes part of the main highway are tagged using the "cycleway=lane" tags which already exist. highway=cycleway is typically used just segregated cycle paths.

Hi again, hope you had a good solstice.

I appreciate this was a while ago but do you have a source for the tag "ref=SW (2)" used for the Shropshire Way?
This change set appears to be the source of it.

Just an FYI there is a note with some interesting discussion about the tags used for the drovers pen, hopefully you can help clarify osm.org/note/4356262

Hi, thanks for your contributions to mapping in rural Shropshire!

Can I ask that you make sure not to delete landuse=residential when adding details as they provide a useful resource and currently it is making it hard to query residential areas in the areas you've mapped.

I've added one area back here but it'll take time to add the others. osm.org/changeset/166483498

Thanks

Hi, I'm not sure I agree - the officale_name tag can be used by itself and isn't necessarily a fallback tag like alt_name or similar.

The name of these overpasses suggest they're what would be used in official documents e.g. by the government highways department and are not colloquial names (try using "South 85-South 280 Connector Overcrossing" in a sentence :) ). In this case official_name is appropriate although there is also bridge:official_name, which I think might be more appropriate.

Hi, I've changed the the highway=construction to highway=proposed as not under construction. I'm not really sure this is suitable for inclusion on OSM, especially so early in the scheme

Hi, I agree that scrub is a better fit for the old rec ground. However still think that this area should be tagged as brownfield in someway as unlikely to be developed anytime soon due to landfill contamination.

To do this I've added a containing brownfield area (osm.org/relation/18517949) - I think this better groups both the containing features.

Hope that works for you too. :)
Thanks

Hi, this looks interesting but I'm struggling to actually see any evidence that the locks are still there? If they're not then they should be removed or have more appropriate tags (natural=water should be removed)

I've added a note to the hoops node. I'm not sure how easy it would be to map as an area as I don't think there are any visible court markings

Hi there is a basketball court on south west of the paved area (you can just about see the hoops in the imagery) but locals insist on parking on it 😔

Hi Magrej, I've set osm.org/way/1299058556 to access=yes as it is a public byway (BOAT). Thanks

Hi there, thanks for the comment! Brooks are usually small or intermittent streams however the definition is arbitrary and their modern day function can depart from their name.
I'm not sure the waterway=brook tag had being marked as discouraged on the wiki when I made this commit but it makes sense as the intermittent=yes tag sufficiently covers it.

I've updated the tags to replace waterway=brook with waterway=drain as I think that is more appropriate vs stream here.

Thanks

Hi willisturm - this stop is explicitly signposted as coach only. Coaches are usually considered a different form of transport in the UK (although I apricate it is quite arbitrary). In this case the stop is only used by tour groups. Is there a way of tagging this?

Going by osm.wiki/Key:tourist_bus (also key:coach) I suggest the following might be agreeable:

bus=no
tourist_bus=designated
highway=bus_stop

Or is the note tag sufficient?

I apricate you're just trying to keep the data clean. Thanks

Great, thanks a lot.

Hey, just an FYI the tracing on a lot of the river sections seems to be way off e.g.
osm.org/way/1198564438

Quite true! I've surveyed lots of Ride UK paths that go through private land.

I'd argue bicycle tags should only be added if permission is explicitly permitted or if the infrastructure suggests it, which isn't the case here.

It appears this user has assumed permission by default in a LOT of cases, which is encouraging trespassing and could get users into trouble.

They've also pretty much ruined Telford's route mapping for bikes. I've already had to undo a change to a path with a narrow kissing gate.

I'll add the small bit that I remember but I don't think it followed the path we went. Facepalmed when I realised none of it was mapped as I usually take pictures of the markers.

Hey there! Just to let you know that I have changed bicycle=yes to bicycle=no on the public footpath at osm.org/way/1160739489
This route is designed as a public footpath so bicycles can't legally use it. I also know that the steps going down to the road are VERY steep so might not be safe to even cycle on the path.

Cheers

Hi, I've noticed that you've marked a lot of paths as suitable for bicycles. I'm not sure this is the case in a lot of cases e.g. osm.org/way/1133424188 which I know has a narrow kissing gate. In other areas I believe they're designated public footpaths so you can't legally cycle on them. Could you please state what source you're using? Thanks