Thank you for this helpful improvement to the map. I notice that Bollington FP 41 way/101827164 is marked as both "designation=public_footpath" and "access=private". It doesn't seem right that both these things can be true: if it's a public footpath, at least "foot=yes" should be set and I wonder if other forms of access are also permitted.

Hi, I noticed this is tagged with the name "Woolsone" but I suspect it should be "Woolstone"

Thank you for your helpful improvements to the map. I noticed you had tagged with way/896022405 "name=footpath" which seems weird: it is a footpath, but that's not its name. I've removed that name and added a "designation=public_footpath" to match way/109670819 which seems like one end of the path. I also removed a "fixme" from that end of the path and the other end at way/109667913

I think all this makes sense, but please let me know if I've made any mistakes.

Hi, John. Thank you for all your helpful improvements to the paths around Cromford and Black Rocks. I've been meaning to improve them for a while, so it's good to see you getting round to it.

Hi, thank you for these useful improvements to the map. In this changeset you altered the name of node/245941740 from "Alport Heights" to "Alport Height". This makes sense and matches the title of its Wikipedia and Wikidata articles. However, "Alport Heights" is a commonly used name for this place, so I've added it back as an alt_name in changeset/114068834 to help searches for osm.org/search?query=alport heights return useful results.

That's great - thank you for fixing this so quickly.

It looks like you've mapped an industrial area at way/956597519 in the water of the River Tame at way/217703929 - the extent of the river as currently mapped also covers Camden Street.

I've removed the towpath tag in changeset/109358696

Thank you for improving the map. I notice Winterford Lane way/83641001 has the tag "towpath=yes" which seems like a mistake given that it doesn't run alongside the canal.

Good point: I didn't check the way's history carefully enough. Thank you for fixing the tags.

It might also be worth restoring the "foot=yes" tag you removed to make it clear that pedestrians have a legal right to use this route.

If there's a gate there, that doesn't mean nobody can pass. Many footpaths pass through gates that pedestrians must open and close.

I see you've removed the "access=private" in way/112575179 which is good, but to improve your future mapping I encourage you to read designation=public_footpath and osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom as well as checking the existing tags on objects before editing them.

In this changeset you have marked way/112575179 as "access=private" even though it also has "designation=public_footpath". As foot access is permitted to public footpaths, it seems you have mistakenly marked this as private. Can you explain the reason for this change?

In this changeset you have marked way/112587247 as "access=private" even though it also has "designation=public_footpath". As foot access is permitted to public footpaths, it seems you have mistakenly marked this as private. Can you explain the reason for this change?

Thank you for helping to improve OpenStreetMap. In this change you marked way/236014093 as "foot=private" and "access=private" and way/156619303 as "access=private". However, both ways also have "designation=public_footpath" which suggests foot access is permitted. Can you explain the reason for these changes?

I notice that way/124110233 has both "access=private" and "designation=public_footpath" on it. Having walked near here, I don't think it's a public footpath.

In this changeset you have added the "access=private" tag to way/222711697 yet this way already has "designation=public_footpath". How can a public footpath be for private use only?

Hi, I noticed node/243780744 was accidentally tagged as a tree in the middle of Moor Lane. I've removed the tree tags from it in changeset/107914696

Yeah, it's annoying we didn't spot this sooner. I'm far from an expert user of JOSM and I don't know how to make it highlight untagged nodes, but this seems like a useful thing for it to do: I've only ever spotted problems like this with KeepRight.

Hi, thank you as ever for your improvements to the map. This changeset contains a few nodes that have no tags on them. I discovered this from https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=86&error=144134398&zoom=15&lat=53.05254&lon=-1.57892&layers=B0T&ch=0%2C70&show_ign=0&show_tmpign=0