I reverted your change because it stripped out information. Just because a tag isn't documented on the wiki, does not mean its use is not allowed, and it certainly does not permit you to randomly swoop down and remove it. OSM mappers thankfully aren't limited to a list of 'approved' tags.

Adding more specific values to the bridge=* and tunnel=* tags seems very much in line with acceptable OSM tagging practice to me. Indeed the wiki already documents several more specific values for these tags. Why shouldn't mappers indicate the specific type of tunnel if they wish?

I also notice you have been replacing specific bridge=* tags with bridge=yes. I'm really not sure why you think it is acceptable to strip out information in this way. None of the removed bridge values were added by me, but again they looked entirely acceptable.

Thanks.

Regarding the highway tag, ignoring the right of way status, the path does indeed look like highway=footway, so I do understand why you made that change. It is unusual to find a byway running along a path which is that narrow. On balance I think bridleway is probably the correct tag, assuming it is just wide enough for a horse to pass along. When I looked there weren't any signs suggesting horses weren't allowed (they could in theory be prohibited by a Traffic Regulation Order).

I notice you have removed the designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic tag from way osm.org/way/110558481/history. It was certainly signed as such when I surveyed it last year. Has the formal legal designation changed since then?

Thanks,
Will

I passed by here this afternoon and noted that there were definitely no bus stops. Please be more careful when remote mapping. The presence of NaPTAN imported customary stop nodes does not mean there are bus stops. Please remember that OSM is a collaborative project. If you had answered my initial question on this changeset, your mistakes could have been fixed without needing to be checked on the ground.

Hi,

You have given the source for these addresses as http://explorer.geowessex.com/nddc. Could you give more details please? I ask because the only addresses I can find on that site are copyright Ordnance Survey.

Thanks,
Will

I did notice the non-standard designation tag when I added this changeset, but decided to leave it because it wasn't something I had checked on the ground. I do strongly suspect it is a public bridleway.

It might be worth checking with kevjs1982 who added the designation tag originally.

Did you intend to remove the highway tag from this service road? - osm.org/way/124267486

Hi,

In this changeset you tagged two bus stops on the A50 close to the A453/M1 roundabout - osm.org/node/562726847 and osm.org/node/562725505. Have you actually visited this location and confirmed the existence of these bus stops? I ask because there definitely wasn't a bus stop next to the north bound carriageway when I surveyed here at Easter. It seems an unlikely location because it is on a grass verge without a pavement and so would be difficult and potentially dangerous to reach.

Thanks,
Will

I have reverted this changeset. Mapping spiral walkways and stairways is difficult and I'm sure the current mapping could be improved, however, your changes made no sense to me. You added a stairway that doesn't exist and joined up ways that are on different levels.

It appears that the whole roundabout was moved rather than just the traffic signals. Everything was shifted roughly 2 metres to the west. Looking at GPS traces I think the original position was slightly more accurate, but it's probably too minor to worry about.

Thanks, Jon.

If you need help with undeleting, just let me know.

Will

In this changeset you have deleted the solar farm at Elton on the Hill commenting that it 'made no sense'. Please could you explain this more. It was certainly there when I surveyed it last year.

Thanks,
Will

Hi,

What is the purpose of adding an elevation for an entire city? To me this usage of the ele tag seems likely to cause confusion, because the ele tag is usually used to provide an accurate elevation at a particular point, whereas this is something much more vague. Many different heights could be entered, depending on how a city's elevation is determined. I can't see any documentation of this usage of the ele tag on the wiki nor do I recall any discussion.

Could you tell me where the data came from and how these elevations where determined.

Will

Today I have had a look at the current situation. It turns out that many of the deleted features do still exist:
The Airport Trail is still there and is still open to the public with minor diversions.
The service road from Church Lane (Lockington) is still there. It's being used as one of the main access roads into the construction site.
The airport viewing area is still there. I think this is just outside the planned development and will probably remain.
The roughly square shaped area of woodland on the north of the current construction area is still intact.

I have undeleted these features.

The public footpath Trigpoint mentioned above has completely gone. It will presumably get reinstated in some form later on.

I have retagged the recently added roads and buildings because there is no sign of them yet on the ground, not even foundations.

I don't doubt you have acted in good faith here. It is easy to get carried away when mapping large scale developments like this, but please check carefully before deleting lots of stuff.

Hi Luke,
I haven't looked what's happening on the ground here for a couple of months, but I'm a bit surprised that all these features have already been cleared. Have you actually confirmed that they have all gone? For example, you have removed a service road all the way from Church Street, Lockington to the airport perimeter - has this road really been obliterated along its entire length at this early stage in the development? The general rule is that we map what exists on the ground now, not what is planned in future. If roads or paths are closed due to the development, you should tag them with access=no, rather than deleting them.

The links to plans you posted above are useful for getting an overview of this development, but it is important to be clear that they are copyright and are not a suitable source for making changes to OSM.
Will

Hi Stan,

There has been a lot of discussion in the past about tagging rights of way and the general consensus is that the highway tag should only be used to indicate physical characteristics and not access rules. There are separate tags available for tagging access (osm.wiki/Key:access). Although for rights of way in England and Wales the most important tag to use is designation (osm.wiki/Key:designation), which is the only unambiguous way to indicate that a right of way exists.

I do understand you wishing to see rights of way shown on the main map rendering at osm.org/. The problem is that rendering is intended for use worldwide and a deliberate decision has been made not to show country specific access rules.

It is important not to think of OSM as just a single map. The idea is that the data should be usable to create a wide variety of different maps. There is a good chance that eventually a general purpose UK specific rendering will become available.
Here is an example that exists at the moment -
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=52.85252&lon=-1.27637
- but note that this is on a mapper's personal site and probably isn't intended to handle lots of traffic.

It is worth considering adding designation tags to the rights of way you are adding, because this is the tag that any future renderings will probably use.

Regards,
Will

Hi Stan,

Last week I commented on a bridleway you added north of Kegworth (osm.org/changeset/46882223). I received no response from you, and at the weekend I decided to survey it on the ground, because your remote mapping was clearly approximate and rather confusing in the way it overlapped other features. Since I uploaded my survey, I see you have made more changes. I have some concerns about this -

1. You have changed a section of the designated route east of 'Cedar Isle' from track to bridleway. I don't think this is correct, because it certainly looked to me like it was used by agricultural vehicles and therefore should correctly be tagged as a track.

2. In making the above change you deleted the way and recreated it. In doing so you have removed valid tags: specifically, designation and surface tags.

3. You have extended the way tagged with highway=bridleway so that it overlaps the adjoining service road (driveway). Ways should not be placed on top of each other in this way. For one thing, it will cause problems with routing.

I don't doubt these changes were made in good faith, but please do be careful not to delete valid information, particularly information someone has taken the time to collect on the ground. Also, when changing something someone has just added, it is always helpful to provide a descriptive changeset comment explaining why.

I'm inclined to revert these changes, but will wait a couple of days in case you wish to comment first.

Regards,
Will (will_p)

Hi, what does 'RA surveys' mean? The abbreviation isn't clear to me.
Thanks.

Hi Stan,

It's good to see you are adding lots of footpaths and bridleways in Leicestershire. However, looking at these additions I'm curious what source you are using? You are adding them at quite a rate, so I'm guessing they might not all be from survey. In general, it would be helpful to fellow mappers if you could give a source for the additions you are making: either in your changesets when you upload or on the individual ways. If I'm planning to walk paths in that area, it is good to be able to identify ones that haven't been surveyed by OSM mappers already and supplying a source would really help with that.

One addition in particular caught my eye: osm.org/way/480740862
I pass by the Long Lane end of this bridleway fairly regularly and I don't recall seeing any public bridleway signs at that point. Further along the bridleway passes over the River Soar - how does it do that? I don't recall a path along the westbound carriageway of the A453 at this point. Is there a ford? After that the bridleway crosses over the A453 - again how does it do that? Is there an underpass or surface crossing? If you have walked the route, a little more information, to show these details would be really helpful.

Thanks,
Will

Welcome to OSM.

I see you have added a footway along Hampden Street. You have added it down the centre of the street so that it mostly shares the same nodes as the road itself (mapped as highway=residential).

Please note that we don't map pavements in this way. If you wish to indicate the presence of pavements along a road, the easiest method is to add the tag sidewalk=both/left/right to the road itself. See osm.wiki/Key:sidewalk for more details.

Pavements are sometimes mapped using separate ways, but usually only when there is a barrier physically separating them from the road itself.

Regards,
Will (will_p)