I thought that was probably the case, but best to get local knowledge. Fixed!

I made some comments about weird double tagging on this changeset
osm.org/changeset/167817988

For instance, `tourism=artwork` had been changed to `tourism=attraction;artwork` which is just wrong and shows a poor understanding of tagging. Do they not see that the retagged object disappears from the map?

I am tempted to bring this up for discussion in the UK discussion forum if I don't get a reply.

Similarly I would avoid this kind of double tagging `barrier=cattlegrid;gate`. Data consumers won't handle this and will ignore this. It is better to pick one. On a road, the most obvious is `barrier=cattlegrid`. You can add `note=Also 0.7 m gate`. Alternatively you can split the way to show a separate footway using a gate. But this gets messy. Retagged using the 1st option.

I wouldn't double tag the Entrust sculpture as `tourism=attraction;artwork`. Objects should have one primary key.
Retagging as `tourism=artwork` + `artwork_type=sculpture`

Thanks for the reference. But these dotted greens paths on the cycling map are labelled as "paths where you should walk your bike" (strange to include on a cycling map). I suspect it means "nobody will really mind if you cycle on these". Either way, I think they should be tagged as footways rather than cycleways.

Is this actually a cycleway? I couldn't see any signage to indicate this.
These isolated sections of cycleway around the roundabout don't make much sense.

It's quite likely that there never was physical survey point. They seemed to be "spot heights" copied from old maps, i.e. a surveyor would have established the height at that point, but no permanent marker/structure was left. Realistically these are historical artefacts that don't belong in OSM and I was just adding "razed:" to avoid deleting them but still distinguish between "real" survey points with permanent structures.

I don't think it really works to pick out the Departmental of Obstectrics in the James Cook when the rest of the hospital is unmapped (and there isn't a good scheme for hospital mapping).

It also looks a bit spammy to advertise a private consultant in an NHS hospital?

I have retagged to clinic to avoid having two hospitals. But I would be tempted to delete?

Fixed.

This will have come from the FHRS data via FHODOT. There's always a bit of a dilemma over named terraces. Perhaps addr:substreet = Yewbarrow Terrace would be better?

Yes, it looks like another editor changed from `highway=service` (plus the correct tagging for bus only) to `highway=busway`. This is perfectly fine tagging, but busways don't show up the standard map. The access tagging is now incorrect (will allow cars). I'll fix this.

What was the basis for changing the access tagging on Centrelink. Isn't this a bus only route?

The gate on the tertiary road Apperley Road:
osm.org/changeset/147752346#map=19/53.837415/-1.705963
looks a bit odd.

Could this have been a temporary closure? I didn't see anything when I passed on 25 Jan 2025 - clear way through to the A658 from the junction with Apperley Lane.

Can you confirm that Durham Shopmobility no longer exists?
https://durhamshopmobility.co.uk/
It seems odd to change it into a hardware shop duplicating the TJ Hughes department store.

That would be a bug with the apps, if they prefer to route over a track than service road. We do need to follow the established OSM data model - making changes to suit individual faulty apps would cause chaos.

It would be interesting to understand which apps have these issues. If you want to canvas other opinions, I suggest raising it on the UK community forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk

I'm confused by some of the access tagging around Ormesby Hall. In particular, the service road leading onto Church Lane is tagged as "motor_vehicle=permissive". But the signage on the ground quite clearly states "Delivery and staff access only" (i.e. "motor_vehicle=delivery"). This is leading to some incorrect routing - we were directed to the wrong entrance.

I think Harry's House is best tagged as tourism=chalet (as I originally had it), since it is self-catering. A tourism=guest_house would have an FHRS ID.

There's no reason why a service road can't be a through route. The problem with track is that it is used for access to land, with the implication that you might need a tractor / 4x4. highway=service + service=driveway might be a good option.

I don't see a problem with the previous "access=private; foot=designated". Changing this to no/yes doesn't change the access rights. I would reserve access=no for cases where the road is impasssable / in a firing range etc.

If you want to emphasise that the road is open to pedestrians (as opposed to highlighting that it is closed to vehicles), then you could change
access=no/private
to
motor_vehicle=private

This means the same thing, but it won't show the markings for access=no/private.

Yes, highway=path is problematic. I generally prefer to use highway=footway together with surface=X. I've changed the public footpath (and added designation=public_footpath). I've left the westerly path as 'access=private' although given the path seems well used, it does seem to have implicit permissive access.

Thanks for the quick response!

Paul

Dear Roger,

I'm querying an access edit to paths providing access to St Oswald's church, Heavenfield in this changeset. These make the church inaccessible since the main route is marked as private. The Northumberland definitive map shows the path from the car park on the Military Road to the churchyard as a public footpath, so this edit seems incorrect?