I’ve changed it to man_made=pontoon in changeset/175799940

Fixed in changeset/175799833

You’re right, it’s a typo. Thanks for spotting it and letting me know! Fixed in changeset/175760386 :)

It’s neither a pier nor a quay, but man_made=pontoon would be appropriate, I think.

Hiya, I see what you’re trying to do here, but I don’t think a pontoon can be described as a building. It doesn’t have walls or a roof.

I think the waterway=pontoon tagging is as valid as waterway=dam.

My suggestion is that either some other tagging needs to be found which describes a pontoon as a structure which is inherently present only on water, or waterwaymap.org needs to be updated to not flag waterway=pontoon for loop errors.

Thanks, adding a note or a fixme would also work. :)

Hiya. If a POI’s website doesn’t resolve any more, that’s a really good hint that the business has closed/changed. Rather than removing the broken link, please take the time to work out what’s changed and update all the details instead — that’s a lot more useful for the map. Otherwise you’re just removing the (often) only sign that a POI is out of date, making it harder for others to spot that it needs updating. Thanks.

I’ve reverted this change (as changeset/175634900) as above. Happy to chat if you think the reasoning above is incorrect :)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892400/Variation_Notice_BM4252IJ-V003.pdf confirms that these generators are permitted for <500 hours of operation per year, in emergency situations. They’re diesel fuelled.

I don’t think it warrants being mapped as a power plant. It’s just part of the components of the nuclear power plant.

Heya, what’s the reasoning for adding this? As I understand it, the gas turbines at Heysham 1 & 2 are for internal use for running the Heysham plant in case of a trip or grid disconnection; they don’t export energy to the grid. They’re also gas fuelled, not oil fuelled, I believe?

Great. I’ve made the changes in changeset/175498881

No worries, one of the great things about OSM is that things can always be changed again to improve them. If you could leave a bit more contextual info in your changeset descriptions, that would help avoid misunderstandings in future, but that’s a very minor suggestion from me. Thanks again for your work on the map :)

Ah I see! Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for jumping to conclusions about your tagging. :)

I suggest using a lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) and a note to indicate the history of the path, then. This will avoid other mappers unknowingly adding it back in future, because the line of ground mats will hang around on aerial imagery for several years.

How about the following?

demolished:highway=path
foot=private
note=Line of temporary ground mats for work on Aira Force, removed once work was completed. Not a path and no right of access.

Cheers :)

Hiya, thanks for your contributions to OSM for the NT so far, it’s great to see the NT continuing to improve the map!

In this case, the highway tagging is correct and needed, so I’ve re-added it in changeset/175451682.

Features are mapped on OSM even if they’re private, with tagging like foot=private indicating that. (OSM maps what’s on the ground, not just what’s accessible to a certain group of people.) In this case access=private wasn’t correct, as that sets the default access for all transport types to ‘private’, which means that private car access was enabled for the path. foot=private is sufficient.

Thanks again for your edits! Happy to discuss this further if you have any questions :)

Ah, good point, I hadn’t realised that tag was deprecated now. Thanks.

Added oneway:bicycle=no and cycleway:left:oneway=-1, and changed cycleway:left from opposite_track to track in changeset/175448878

I think we’re in agreement that the sign applies at the transition point between the shared use section and the pavement.

If you really want to push forward an interpretation of bicycle=dismount tagging that means the way it’s on is necessarily part of a cycle route, you’ll need to get consensus amongst the community to change these wiki pages:

- osm.wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#966
- bicycle=dismount

---

As a note, often putting words in CAPITALS when typing on the internet is interpreted as shouting, and shouting generally doesn’t help a discussion. A less shouty way of emphasising a word is to use *stars* or _underscores_ around it.

Hiya, thanks for the note. Sounds like you know more about the site than my guess from the aerial imagery, so please feel free to amend the tagging to be more appropriate. :) If a suitable tag isn’t already documented on the wiki (see things linked from man_made=wastewater_plant) then feel free to make up a new one (see osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like).

In any case, it might be worth keeping a link to https://waterprojectsonline.com/case-studies/kendal-wwtw-2019/ in a note on the reactor. :)

@JassKurn: Thanks for your detailed input. Would you be interested in modifying bicycle=dismount to add (or link to) a ’bicycle signage in the United Kingdom’ section which covers what you’ve said above?

The wiki page currently pretty clearly implies that bicycle=dismount is appropriate tagging for this sign in the UK, although it does not have a picture of this sign. Other people will draw the same conclusions as me about its relevance. It would be good to have guidance about this sign on the wiki so that not everyone who edits OSM has to read all UK highway law first. :)

---

@Pete I am happy to discuss my edits with you if you want to discuss them. There are various points and possible ways forward regarding this pavement tagging which I gave in my previous comment, but you have chosen to ignore those and talk about motorways instead. I am not going to talk about motorways.

If you continue to make ad-hominem insinuations against me, then I will happily refer you to the DWG again. As a reminder, last time they banned you, they asked you to apologise to me for calling my edits “vandalism”, and to provide sources for your edits in future. I have received no such apology, and I have not seen any sources for your edits since.

If you think I’m being unfair here, you are of course welcome to refer me to the DWG. But in any case, I think they would prefer us to come to an understanding ourselves. We are all here because we want to make a map which accurately and unambiguously reflects ground truth.

Hiya, when changing the alignment of geometry, please make sure to align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer first. The aerial imagery has an offset from reality (due to how it is photographed) and this varies from -2 to +2m in both dimensions from town to town, or even across a town. So the aerial imagery by itself cannot be used as an accurate source of ground truth for geometry alignment. The Cadastral Parcels can, as they come from accurate GPS measurements from the Land Registry.

I’ve re-aligned a few things in Windermere accordingly.

Any questions, just ask :) Thanks

Thanks for checking :)

Are you sure about the postcode change to the Old Sawmill cafe? The FHRS registration and the cafe’s Facebook page both say LA28DS, not LA28DU. The centroid for LA28DU is only on the building slightly further to the north, not the centre of the sawmill site.