Mikey Co's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 170089574 | I thin you've broken the multipolygon which mapped the wooded section of Dartford Heath |
|
| 154887829 | I can't remember if the gate is wooden or metal |
|
| 159973923 | Busway might be a more strictly accurate tag, but as it doesn't render in many tiles, isn't ideal? |
|
| 157105113 | I've now revised this |
|
| 157105113 | Happy to change it back to motor_vehicle=discouraged. Do you think I should keep it as a track though, as the road on PROW mapping is mapped differently from the section south of Lodge Farm? |
|
| 150801800 | I'll remove the duplicate mapping. With footpaths, actual surveying is the only way to be 100% sure where they actually go. I've been filling in some of the footpath mapping from previous walks that I never mapped at the time. |
|
| 150801800 | We seem to have updated the same area at the same time, LOL |
|
| 148160630 | Ditto there was a permissive path here, why has that been removed? |
|
| 147223485 | Why have these paths been removed? I walked them in January, and they were clearly signed as permissive footpaths. |
|
| 147726640 | Thanks! |
|
| 147726640 | I don't know. I've no idea whether the pipework to the north is that pressure reduction station, and it's not somewhere you can get close up to. |
|
| 143756961 | Looks fine. You also need to maybe remove the HSBC website, and add one for GAILs is it has one |
|
| 135933857 | Hello
|
|
| 140758597 | I'm confused why you've changed 385461048 so that it's no longer a footpath, when it's public footpath FP28 |
|
| 139581138 | Hello
|
|
| 131313397 | The mapping in this area is a bit confusing now, as it contains both where the footpaths actually go, and where they are "meant to go" as per the OS, even if they cross fences and fields of crops, which isn't correct. |
|
| 137642188 | Done! |
|
| 135933857 | Thanks for the reply. In terms of West Kennet Avenue, to an extent people walk down a certain path because they are "told to" by the grass being cut short or worn down...
|
|
| 135933857 | Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I can now understand why you want to remove the paths completely, though from a "mapping" point of view, it's perhaps more helpful to leave the paths in, even if their access is removed, as visually (especially in the aerial photos) they'll still be there for a while and there's a danger people will try and add them back.
|
|
| 135933857 | https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/wiltshire/avebury/around-silbury-hill This walk for example uses two of the paths |