Hiya, you deleted a load of detail around Memorial Road/Gardens in this changeset and replaced it with less detailed mapping. Why? Was the original mapping irretrievably wrong?

Please bear in mind osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Hi, I don’t know if you saw my comment on changeset/176859965, but please do consider aligning the aerial imagery to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before adding lots of geometry like this.

The houses look great, and Thornhill is better mapped now, but someone is going to have to realign them all to ground truth at some point in the future and that could have been easily avoided. :)

Heya, thanks for adding all these houses.

Please remember to align the aerial imagery to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before adding or significantly changing a lot of geometry. As you may know, the aerial imagery is not guaranteed to be aligned to ground truth, and it can be up to about 2m out in each dimension.

The OSMUK Cadastral Parcels (available in the ‘Overlays’ section of the ‘Background Settings’ on the right hand side of ID) are guaranteed to be aligned to ground truth in the UK, so the aerial imagery should be aligned to the Cadastral Parcels before starting to edit. Alignment can vary across a village or across time (as the aerial imagery is updated) so it’s important to do this at the start of every edit.

From a quick check, it looks like the offset for Bing aerial imagery is about -0.32, -1.27 metres in the middle of Thornhill at the moment.

Hope that makes sense, happy editing :)

Removed it on the basis that it’s likely a purely online business from a home office. changeset/176858235

Fantastic, thanks :) I see you’ve been using it already. If you mention the offset you use for a particular edit in your changeset message then other editors can use the same offset in future, to keep things consistent in a given area.

Happy editing :D

Hiya, thanks for adding all these houses.

If you’re going to be adding significant amounts of geometry in future, please make sure to align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer before starting. Otherwise you’ll end up with an up to 2m offset of your edits from ground truth.

The Cadastral Parcels layer can be enabled in the ‘Overlays’ section of ‘Background Settings’ on the right in the ID editor. It gives the cadastral parcels from the Land Registry, which are known to be accurate. It can also help with working out whether a building is a detached or semi-detached house.

This is important because the offset of aerial imagery from ground truth varies by several metres between villages (or even across a village), and it changes when the imagery is updated.

See osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery#Binding_objects for more information.

I think the offset in Holme for Bing imagery is currently about -0.45, -0.4 metres.

Note you can also use the ‘Q’ key when a building is selected to automatically square its corners, which can be useful for houses.

Happy to chat about this further if you have any questions. Happy editing! :)

Hiya, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Is this business one which potential customers can turn up to without an appointment, and walk in? Or is it a home office, with services offered exclusively online?

The shop= tag is for the former (businesses which are like a traditional shop) and not the latter. See shop=*

If this business operates purely online and this is a home office address then it probably shouldn’t be tagged in OpenStreetMap at all — OSM is a map of the physical environment, not a business directory. :)

Hopefully that makes sense, happy to answer any questions

Hiya, why did you delete this footpath? It’s a public right of way according to the council’s definitive map (see the Public Rights of Way overlay in the ID editor).

What’s the situation on the ground?

Please put more detail in your changeset messages in future, as ‘fiexed’ doesn’t tell anyone anything about what you’ve changed or (more importantly!) why you changed it and what sources you used. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks, and happy editing :)

I reverted the IATA changes as changeset/176541500

Are you the same user as silver1549?

For anyone looking for a source for the assertion that Brae Pasture is part of the NNR, see https://www.wildingleborough.org.uk/visit:

“In September 2025, the Ingleborough National Nature Reserve was officially extended to include all of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust's reserves in the Ingleborough area, as part of the King's Coronation Series of National Nature Reserves”

Great, thanks! :D

Hiya, please don’t make edits which span such a large geographical area, as it makes it hard for others to review them.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

This should probably have been one edit per county or per airport, and with a more descriptive changeset message than “additions and fixes”, as that’s meaningless. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Are these IATA codes you’ve added actually valid? I’ve searched for a few of them and they don’t show up on the IATA website (e.g. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=QKC)

Hiya, if you want to tag the flat numbers, see addr:flats=*

Hiya, did you align the aerial imagery to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels before making this edit? I think you’ve broken the alignment I spent a while making accurate in changeset changeset/174076320.

I believe the offset of the Bing imagery relative to ground truth (Cadastral Parcels) in this area is about -1.84,-0.97 metres.

Hiya. Thanks for trying to improve the map. I’ve had to revert this changeset (and your following one which deleted the bridleway) as the bridleway does exist as a right of way, and hence should be on the map.

The reversion is here: changeset/176137143

You can see the right of way using the ‘Public Rights of Way’ overlay in the ID editor, or on the council’s definitive map here: https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/

The legal right of way needs to be mapped. We have precious few legal access rights to the countryside as it is, especially around the Lune, so allowing some to be lost is not good for public access to the countryside.

I realise the ford is only usable in very low water, but this should be mapped by adding additional tags to the bridleway to describe its physical state. It’s already mapped as smoothness=impassable and horse_scale=dangerous for that reason. If you know of more physical tags which would be appropriate (see the wiki: osm.wiki/) please add them. :)

Finally, with a few exceptions (which are available in the ID editor), OS maps are *not* a permissible source for information for OpenStreetMap, as their licensing is incompatible with OSM’s. Please do not use them for edits. See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence

I realise this is a lot to take in. Unfortunately, UK public rights of way law is complicated, and OSM necessarily has to reflect that.

Happy to answer any questions you might have :)

I am well aware of those guidelines thank you.

Better that stuff is mapped from out of date imagery than not mapped at all. :)

Thanks for removing them (changeset/175994064), although in future it might be better to change them to use the removed:* lifecycle prefix (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay), or changing the tagging to tree stump (natural=tree_stump), to avoid someone accidentally re-adding them from outdated aerial imagery in future. Ta :)

Heya, thanks for your edits around Troutbeck recently. Are you aware of osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse ?

Oops, thanks!