Hiya, I’ve had to revert this changeset (as changeset/174427110) because you deleted part of the Roman road, and part of Inglewood Road too. (way/531471908)

The change you seemed to be intending to make – turning the footpath near QEGS into a cyclepath – seems unexpected to me too. Has this path recently been upgraded? It’s not shown as a current or planned cycle route on the LCWIP for Penrith (https://www.westmorlandandfurness.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/active-travel/local-cycling-and-walking-infrastructure-plans-lcwips#Penrith).

There are some weak traces for it on Strava Heatmap (https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?sport=RideLike&style=hybrid&terrain=false&labels=true&poi=true&cPhotos=true&gColor=blue&gOpacity=100#16.2/54.65709/-2.75596) but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal cycle route.

What’s your source? :)

> Nobody else interprets the tag in that way.

The wiki is the canonical source of how tags are interpreted. There are multiple consumers and renderers of OSM data. They need a place to document and agree on how tags are interpreted. That’s the wiki. If a renderer like cyclOSM is going to deviate from what the wiki says, they’d better have a good reason for it — and engage with people on the wiki and other renderers to improve the tagging schema so it’s unambiguous.

You’ve probably not seen anyone else interpret the tag that way because there are very few renderers which cater for cycling. My guess would be that most renderers basically ignore the bicycle= tag.

> Cycle routing algorithms include "dismount" sections - so it is important not to use this tag for places where cycling is prohibited.

I think this gets to the crux of this particular issue. Perhaps some additional tagging is needed to disambiguate between “this way is part of a cycle route but you have to dismount for a bit” and “this way is a footpath but connects to a cycle route so cyclists are reminded that now is the time to dismount”.

I think the distinction between highway=cycleway bicycle=dismount and highway=footway bicycle=dismount would be sufficient?

I don’t know why you’re talking about motorways, they’re obviously not relevant here.

I’ve reverted this as changeset/174327623

If it’s a newer mast which hasn’t appeared on imagery yet, please point to the RF survey! Thanks

I’ve reverted this as changeset/174327623 because it’s not visible on aerial imagery and duplicates the two masts next to it.

If it’s a newer mast which hasn’t appeared on imagery yet, please point to the RF survey! Thanks

Hiya, what do you mean by ‘clarity’ here? Has the snowsports club been redeveloped/refurbished since the current Bing aerial imagery was taken? Your edits remove detail from the pavilion/covered area at the bottom of the slope. The previous version of the map was more correct, at least if nothing’s changed since I last visited the slope.

If you let me know what you’re trying to achieve on the map here, I can help you achieve it :)

That’s grand, thanks for tidying this up :)

(Context is at note/5029359 for anyone reading this in future)

Good morning Pete.

The wiki documents that bicycle=dismount has exactly the same meaning as bicycle=no, so the tagging I used was correct. See bicycle=dismount

Given the equal choice between bicycle=dismount and bicycle=no for a bridge which is explicitly signposted as “cyclists dismount”, bicycle=dismount reflects the on the ground situation better. Both tags are correct though.

To reiterate: bicycle=dismount means cycling is not allowed on the pavement.

Why do you keep changing this?

There’s no mast visible on Bing aerial imagery here, and there also isn’t one listed on https://mastdatabase.co.uk/gb/sites/. What RF survey did you use?

Are you sure this isn’t a duplicate of the two masts already mapped either side of it?

Hi, I’ve undone these changes because they’re all over the place. Please split your changes into smaller, more self-contained ones; use more descriptive changeset descriptions (“improved clarity” is meaningless); and align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before starting editing.

If you have questions about any of that, please feel free to ask; the community is here to help :)

changeset/174057327

That’s great, thanks for updating them :D

‘Moss’ means wetland or bog, so these should both be tagged as natural=wetland wetland=bog rather than place=locality.

The same applies for all other ‘moss’ names around the north of England, for future reference :)

way/1435505356 is still mapped as a wall connecting to the middle of the road. Did you mean to tag it as a track/service road instead?

I haven’t fully checked your edit to fix things (changeset/173500215), but from a quick spot-check, you haven’t reinstated way/540698481 from this changeset, despite it being on the Definitive Map.

Note that when mapping official public footpaths, they need to be tagged as designation=public_footpath and foot=designated. See osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths

Finally, you really need to split your edits up into smaller geographical areas. Nobody can check edits which span most of the north of England. See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks

OK, thanks for the explanation! :)

Hiya, I’ve reverted this (changeset/173546070) because detail is allowed on the map, and important (e.g. for seeing plot sizes, which side of a property access is on, detailed land use for calculating greenness of settlements, etc.).

Thanks for your reply. I’m very doubtful, and have removed it in changeset/173536594. It doesn’t fit with any of the local naming etymology, and nobody on https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?threads/a-gragareth-mystery.32857/page-2 had any idea either (and those people like figuring out names).

Are you sure that’s a real name and not a deliberate mistake in the OS map data by OS? I’ve never heard this area called by that name (I am local).

Fixed in changeset/173387985 using Bing Streetside imagery and the parks’ websites.

No answer (to any of my comments on your changesets) ⇒ reverted as changeset/173384993

Happy to discuss this further if you’d like to reply :)

Fixed various unlikely paths copied from Strava Heatmap in the following changesets:

changeset/173377845
changeset/173377985
changeset/173378293

If you disagree with these changes I’m happy to discuss further :)