Hi,

In summary, very large and very old outbuilding. Thick stone wall with corrugated rood. Typcial historic farm outbuilding found on Dartmoor. Associated with resdiential house to east which is missing from OSM.

I do know the area, and ironically have been delayed answering because I've been staying in Dartmoor area for the last few days. The building is easily viewed and next to a very popular PRoW in the very popular Postbridge area.

The building is a large outbuilding associated with a house to the east of it. The house and another outbuilding are missing from OSM. These buildings look newer (but still 19th Century). All on OS OpenMap Local

Bulding looks very old, with large rough granite stone construction, with a modern rusting corrugatged roof. Typical Dartmoor farm building. Now an outbuidlng for an expensive house. Confident, but can't prove, built as farm outbuilding.

So mapping original use
building=farm_auxiliary ?
or
building=outbuilding

Hi AlbertoPPosada,

This looks like your first edit, so welcome to OSM.

Unfortunatley the Wilko in this shopping centre is already mapped.
node/10078253244
So I've deleted the duplicate Wilko you added.

But thanks for choosing to go out and add something to the map

Jass

Hi Wilpin,

There's a few tags that appear left behind from the construction phase. Can these be deleted? Haven't been in that area for ages so not sure of what it looks like now.

Hi joynton.

In OSM we use the building= tag to record the presence of a building, and the physical type/architecture of the building.
building=*

So the building should still be
building=church
But, I think that was wrong as it appears the structure is a chapel so the tag should be
building=chapel

A different use for a building can be tagged with osm.wiki/Tag:building:use=. In this case
building:use=residential

Hi Neon_tetra83,

You made some edits to this way. Some appear reasonable such as removing name, and residential road tag.

But you've converted way to a path when it clearly appears to be a tarmac access road. Path tag in the UK is commonly used for unmanged ways you find going through fields. An appropriate tag for this road would appear to be highway=service.

You have added access restrictions by using access=private. The use of private in this tag is to show access requires individual permission. This would cause issues for people with reasonable need to use the road eg making deliveries to a property.

An appropriate tag would be access=destination.

I'd suggest the road is tagged as following
highway=service
ownership=private
access=destination
surface=ashphalt
smoothness=good
lit=no

Hi baz90,

You've tagged the building as a shed (building=shed).
In openstreetmap the tag building=shed is for the small structures commonly found in back gardens.

The large farm buiding is tagged as building=barn
building=barn

I'm happy to to make the change if you do not wish to do so.

Jass

Hi thevetchlings,

You've converted the tag landuse=meadow to landuse=farming. The landuse=farming means the land is used for growing arable crops. That is clearly not the case. This area, and nearly all of the Dartmoor area only have natural=meadow, meadow=pasture.

I personally strongly dislike the tagging OSM has ended up with for pasture, but thats what we have.

You're also introducing the tag natural=grassland, grassland=moor. The usage of moor in the UK appears primarily by you. Unless there is community aggreement, we have to stick to heath.

Thanks,
Jass

Hi bbqman,

In this edit, and several others, you've dealt with waterways crossing barriers and ways by adding layer=1 to the barrier or way.

I believe this is the wrong way to deal with this, and it's more complicated in Dartmoor.

First off, the layer tag must only be added to the section where the layers are different. You've added them to the entire barrier/way.

We cant assume (or guess) what the layer values are. There may be a bridge, culvert, ford or "step_over". It's common in Dartmoor for many of its numerous small brooks to flow through small holes in a wall or hedge, or be narrow enough to be walked over. I believe there is currently no way of taggin this in OSM.

I'm guessing this was done to clear up errors raised by a Validator tool. It's important to not strictly follow the suggestions of a Validator. They are often wrong, and don't take into account local mapping practices.

I've deleted the layer=1 from ways where it is a taggin error.

Thanks
Jass

Hi DevonWill,

I believe the tagging does not work for the current use of the cycleway. Haven't been to the area for a long time, but I believe the bridge is still closed?

The cycleway in this changset has access=no added. I assume to show you can't use the cycleway, but the former tags of foot=designated and bicycle=designated are still present.

For OpenStreetMapping it is expected that the more detailed tag overides the lesser tag. So data users would start by looking at access=no and decide no travel was allowed along the way, then would look at the more detailed tags of foot & highway=designated and decide there is access by these travel modes because the tag is more detailed. Hope that makes sense?

So, as I'm assuming, the path is simply closed the foot and biycle tags need removing.

I can see the same form of problem is present on the bridge. Where the detailed tags need removing and replaced with access=no.

Are you happy to makes these changes? If not I am able to do them.

Thanks, Jass

Hi Richard,

I think you've made a mistake in this changeset. You've added a gate on the junction of two ways. I would expect a barrier to be on a way, not a junction node.

In this situation I'd guess the barrier is on, and effects the journey along, the path. And is located a few metres from the where the path joins the driveway?

As this is a Public Footpath, you can also add foot=designated to the gate node.

Jass

Yes, a phonebox without a phone is still a phonebox.

Many phonebox's are having their phones removed but the box stays in place. Left as notable feature, and commonly repurposed as AED location, or public bookcase. Therefore the amenity=telephone is gone, but a an amenity=public_bookcase can now exist inside a telephone box.

This has caused some debates on tagging, but has evolved to use tag man_made=telephone_box for the box. The result is tagging similar to below

amenity = public_bookcase
public_bookcase:type = phone_box
man_made = telephone_box
booth = K6
disused:amenity = telephone

There are a number of issues in the consecutive changesets you made here. In this changeset you tried to fix the errors that were created by the wrongly added footway.

In this and the previous edit you've converted path to footway, when there is a local preference for these Dartmoor horse & foot ways to be mapped as paths.

I reverted the two changesets in 160879128 & 160700871

I'll look at the paths that were added and add them were appropriate in a new edit.

Looking at it further, there are a number of issues in the consecutive changesets you made here. In your next changeset you tried to fix the errors that were being indicated to you by adding fords where the wrongly mapped footway crossed streams.

In this and the next edit you've converted path to footway, when there is a local preference for these Dartmoor ways to be mapped as paths.

I reverted the two changesets in 160879128 & 160700871

I'll look at the paths that were added and add them were appropriate in a new edit.

Hi,
You added highway=footway to the edge of a heath multipolygon. I assumed this was a blunder so
I removed the footway in changeset - 160874950

Hi MapSpot,

From memory this is not access=private. It is privately owned and used by public without restriction. A more likely access tag is highway=permissive.

I can see your retagging several objects from private=yes to access=private. That can not be assumed from the tagging because private=yes is poorly used to tag access or ownership.
In this case its ownership.

Maybe you have the wrong location for your landslide? The landslide mentioned in you link is not near this bridge.

Gloucestershire councils online map shows that the deleted Footpath MST28, is temporarily closed due to safety reasons. Deletion was the wrong choice. Tagging should have been changed with a note, so map does not show it as accessible.

Strava heatmaps imply some of the other deleted paths are used. Do they exist?

This is a poor edit, and should be reverted, primarily to bring back and retain history of temporally closed footpath public footpath. But, it's important to deal with issue of other deletions that may be correct.

This bridge is not under construction, so I assume the tagging in this changeset is a blunder.

I have fixed the tagging in the following changeset.
changeset/159585474

I originally added this replacement bridge, and still had the survey data

And... I've also looked at some other edits you've made where you've removed maxpseed:type=sign. I strongly disagree with removing the maxspeed:type=sign, if the road is 30 mph and does not have a lit= tag.

This is a subject where OSM, or OSM UK community has provided a clear view on. I suggest bringing it up on the OSM UK Community Discussion webpage?

Sorry, error in response, and you can't edit. I should have said
"There is a section that is NSL Restricted but I mapped as lit=no"