Nice work! Thanks for digging into this

> Does that change how we tag it?

I’m not sure, this is an interesting situation. I can see the arguments for tagging the two halves of the crossing differently; but can also see the arguments for tagging them both as traffic light controlled (it just happens that the safe crossing period for the general traffic lane is basically only the length of the amber on any of the parts of the light sequence).

Maybe tagging the two halves differently would be more representative of people’s actual experience when crossing, i.e. wait for a gap in the traffic and take your chances, rather than waiting for a specific part of the traffic light sequence.

Maybe when The Sail Works is finished, this junction will get reworked a little to improve things for pedestrians!

> As an aside, I think the labelling of Cable Street vs Parliament street is wrong

Agreed. I wonder if it’s actually Parliament Street on both carriageways all the way down to the junction around Sugar House Alley?

Looking at mapillary the only other road sign I can see is one for North Road on the building immediately south of Sugar House Alley (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.05146740053016&lng=-2.797175192922168&z=18.002058557365068&pKey=503566007671134&focus=photo).

I’ve fixed North Road in changeset/170343078

Do you want to go ahead and fix Cable Street/Parliament Street to whatever you think is best supported by the evidence?

> I guess there's also the unmarked crossing of Greyhound Bridge Road to the NW of the lights.

Yeah, I think that should be tagged the same as the NE-bound Parliament Street.

On that basis, I think I am leaning towards crossing=traffic_signals, crossing:signals=shared, button_operated=no for all of them, with different values of crossing:markings= for them.

No response ⇒ I guess this can wait until someone next StreetCompletes this area

I’m not sure this is the right tagging, although the topic is a bit fraught. I think these lights are like the ones at Bolton-le-Sands (node/10956035839). The crossing is _traffic_ light controlled, in that it’s basically only safe for pedestrians to cross when the traffic lights go red. But there are no _pedestrian_ lights.

So I think this should be crossing=traffic_signals (note ‘traffic’, not ’pedestrian’), but with button_operated=no and crossing:signals=shared.

Unfortunately the wiki doesn’t have an example specifically like this one. The nearest it has is the fifth example on crossing:signals=*#Examples

Let me know your thoughts! :)

Sure, changed in changeset/170287522

Hiya, welcome back to OpenStreetMap. A reminder that you need to state sources when editing, otherwise others have no hope of verifying your edits. This applies to everybody.

The source for this kind of edit could be ‘survey’ or ‘Mapillary imagery’ or ‘Bing Streetside’, for example, if those are the sources you used.

You can list the sources for an edit in the ‘Sources’ box just below the changeset comment when you upload an edit.

See osm.wiki/Verifiability and source=*

Heya, even if this path is blocked on the ground, it still exists as a legal right of way (it’s on the definitive map of rights of way for the area), so should be mapped.

If it’s blocked in reality, that needs to be reported to the council’s rights of way department: go to https://www.cumberland.gov.uk/parks-culture-and-leisure/countryside-access and click ‘Make an enquiry about public rights of way’

Fantastic (and thanks for all the other high-quality edits you’ve made in the area recently; I hope you had a nice time :)

Nice work, thanks :)

I’ve updated the tagging here as I suggested above, in changeset/169978801

The signage differs (‘except for access’ / ‘except for loading’) at the two ends and I’ve arbitrarily picked the latter for the tagging (meaning maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery) as that’s more common throughout Lancaster.

I’ve reworked the tagging on Bulk Road in changeset/169978440 to use the updated maxweightrating:hgv and maxweightrating:hgv:conditional tagging, and also to extent the restricted area to the Factory Hill junction, where there’s another restriction sign (see Bing Streetside imagery).

ah, and now having read changeset/169801885, I’ve changed it to maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery in changeset/169978175

I’ve reverted this change as changeset/169978022, and added the missing maxweightrating:conditional=none @ destination tagging.

For this road, the signage is visible on Bing Streetside at the Owen Road/Lune Street junction.

The ‘Public Rights of Way’ overlay in ID (see Overlays in the Background Settings pane on the right) shows it’s a footpath (green line). It does show the footpath starting from the house’s driveway at the northern end, though. Perhaps that’s why the gate’s locked, and that end of the path needs tweaking on OSM?

Heya, are you sure Brierholme guest house is trading? They were removed from the map by (I think) the owners last year (changeset/152038550) and their website says they’ve closed (https://www.brierholme.co.uk/).

(For anyone reading this in future, this edit is in response to changeset/169802057)

(The update was done as changeset/169808418, for reference)

Thanks, both of you, for looking at this. I believe there’s another sign about the restriction at the Caspian Way/Ashton Road mini-roundabout, which would mean that the entire section which IvaKraljić tagged should be tagged with some kind of maxweight tags, I believe. Not just the section nearest the A6 crossroads.

I suspect the weight restriction is for the benefit of the Piccadilly Lane and Ashford Road bridges.

Heya :) Thanks for explaining things.

I think the reasoning for the consensus in 93427676 still stands, so I’ll revert this changeset (done as changeset/169833912).

I acknowledge that multiple access tagging is confusing for routing systems, but foot=yes;discouraged is the best description of this footpath that anyone’s come up with.

I can’t remember if this footpath is physically signposted as discouraged, but other similar tidal walks on the bay are signed that way, and it’s common knowledge that people really should only attempt the walks with a local guide. But legally there’s nothing to stop them having a go themselves.

If, having read 93427676, you can suggest a better tagging scheme which encapsulates all the thoughts mentioned there, then we can surely change all the local tidal footpaths accordingly (not just this one). :)

I hate the fact that people trash bothies, but the information about their locations is public and has been for a long time (each MBA bothy has its own map on the MBA website, for example). Social media is probably more to blame for people trashing them than them being mapped on OSM.

If you’re trying to stop bothies being trashed by removing them from one map, that’s not going to work. That horse has bolted years ago and the stable door is broken.