I'm just reverting the removal of orienteering information
osm.wiki/Orienteering
I noticed in Durham area. If unsure of purpose of tags, please don't remove!

Looks good to me. It suggests (which is probably) the case that it is farm access track rather than a footpath. Ideally somebody would check on the ground, but would be wary myself as it's probably private land. Cheers! Paul

Sorry - hope you don't think I'm picking on your edits! I'm fixing this to a culvert going underneath the path.

Paul H.

Hi,
Is this path passable on foot from Beaurepaire all the way to the railway path? The Strava data suggests that it's difficult/impossible to ford on foot. There clearly is some kind of track, but could this be a private farm access route to the pair of fields across the river?

ref did seem more natural, as it is, well, the reference identifying the road, as for A, and B.

But I see the logic of having hidden references for things that are not used on signage.

Will rationalise across Co. Durham where I've been correcting the C road network.

I don't think access routes in Crook Hall and Gardens car park should be marked as private. The car park has continued to operate independently of Crook Hall (which is now closed). It is advertised as a (privately owned) car park that is available to the public:
https://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3486/Durham-City-car-parks

Agreed! I tend to find that maps in information sheets are often too approximate to trace a route. Certainly for this one, I used the route description (not the map) in conjunction with the existing OSM mapping to work out the route and walk it. As you say, the on-ground signage wouldn't be sufficient to work out the route with any confidence.

I do appreciate that there are complexities involved with copyright and data sources, but that's all the more reason for providing clearer guidance on what is and isn't a copyright violation. I find myself making my own judgements, which may not agree with others'.

This changeset was a survey from walking the (waymarked) route. The "source" is effectively for "verifiability".

But I actually disagree with this interpretation of copyright. The copyright lies in creative element (the map) and not the information / facts (the walk consists of path X, followed by path Y). Publicly known facts (such as waymarked trails) cannot be copyrighted. Otherwise you couldn't source information such as PRoW references from printed works (such as council notices, which are themselves implicitly copyrighted). Tracing over a map is quite different, and clearly infringing copyright on the creative element. Unwaymarked routes taken from copyrighted guides are also suspect (there are a number of these on OSM).

Cheers!

Hi Mike,
These aren't tags I have used, but I have adjusted / extended tracks when I've seen them. I've just tended to map tracks without adding access tags; especially on access land, this is a bit moot, and it's clear from Strava traces that many footpaths have de facto adjusted to follow farm tracks, and this probably suits both landowner and walker!

I agree that these tags are probably incorrect proxies for tracktype, but am not keen to remove somebody else's tagging.

Paul

Hi,
I was just walking about Great High Wood and am very suspicious about the "cycleways" marked in the woods. From the tagging guidelines, highway=cycleway is only appropriate for cycling/MTB infrastructure. These are at best informal routes on which people have used mountain bikes on without permission. Personally I would demote to highway=path and perhaps add access=permissive to distinguish them from rights of way. Would you agree?

Paul

OK, I can see the logic of removing usage=main from the northbound line, but does it follow that the line needs service=siding? This is presumably what causes this line to be "greyed out" on the rendered map, and makes it looks like the northbound platform doesn't have a service.

Hello! I'm querying the change of the northbound line in Durham station from usage=main -> service=siding. Isn't this still the main line? Effectively the middle line through Durham station is a fast "passing" line (bidirectional I think). It looks quite odd for the line next to the northbound platform to be rendered "greyed out"!

Paul H.

Sounds reasonable. lanes=1 would seem the key thing. A smart router would interpret lanes=1 without oneway=yes as "narrow" and penalise accordingly. The problem with "illegal" data is that a data consumer is, at best, likely to ignore or else misinterpret it (like me!).

That was a bit hasty. I was tidying up with JOSM validator which flags a non-integer lanes as a significant error, and assumed it was mistakenly thinking lanes was per direction.

I do think a non-integer will confuse data consumers. Wouldn't it be better to choose 1 or 2, e.g. depending on whether cars could generally pass with care, or whether serious backing up would be needed?

I will have used the JOSM validator at the end of the session and will have clicked "fix" to this warning perhaps a bit casually. IIRC JOSM uses "foot=designated" (ideally with designation=public_footpath or such-like) or "foot=permissive" for legal status. IMHO the significance of "foot=yes" is unclear, and I can see why it thinks it is redundant with "highway=footway". But I agree that it isn't good practice to strip off these tags since other mappers may be using them to indicate legal status.

Not quite sure what the comment means. Possibly related to the JOSM validator flagging that "foot=yes" or equivalent is unnecessary for highway=footway? I can't think of any other reason for deleting "foot" tags.

Agreed. I surveyed the twin tunnels a couple of months back soon after they re-opened.
The user did flag their changes for review after all! I assume that the added ways have been copied from Bing maps without appreciating that OSM already had better mapping!

Hi both,

This does look like an incorrect addition to me. There are two tunnels (one cycle, one ped), and were correctly marked as starting south of the north portal and vice versa. The new added ways are not correct.

My bad. Fixing route breaks and validation problems. Hadn't looked carefully enough on OS StreetView and missed that Pikestone Lane does change mysteriously to Pikestol Lane. Agree this is probably wrong, but have undone change pending on-the-ground survey.