Hi, thanks for your comment and suggestion to avoid including car parks in walking route relations. This is something we are actively reviewing as part of a QA on National Trust trails in OSM. It is likely that moving forwards, we will be removing these features from the route relations for ease of use in routing engines.

NT GIS Trails Team.

Thank you for picking up the tagging error on the trails at Sheffield Park!

Thanks for fixing the spelling error!

Hello, thanks for flagging as well as repairing the duplicated ways and relations - this was likely made in error while using a handheld device in challenging conditions the field! Please do continue to feedback if you notice anything else awry, but hopefully a one off!
Thanks again! NT GIS Team.

Hi, yes - we reviewed a number of different field based editing apps during our pilot testing phase of the project, to include StreetComplete. At the moment, we have decided to use of Vespucci as it seems to have a greater ranger of editing functionality, though we recognise StreetComplete is perhaps more user friendly! The GIS Trails team are aware of all of the options and will make use of both, as appropriate.

Similarly, we are in discussion with two OSM UK board members, and our development team around automating things like What3Words, but have yet to finalise this. Regardless, it is helpful to have feedback and be pointed towards member roles as this may be helpful for routes with alternative / seasonal sections of trail, so thank you again. NTTrailsLSE

Hi, thanks for the response. We are beginning a process of adding all of the NT promoted walking trails into OSM, with the ambition of using the data to update our website in the future. We are looking to make our trail pages easier to find, provide better pre-visit information, allow visitors to filter for trails that suit their needs, and add functionality around route planning & navigation. As a result, between April 2025 and February 2026, we are mapping the routes, along with supporting infrastructure (ie. cafes, toilets, benches, viewpoints, car parks etc) into OSM. For further context around the project, see: osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths.

With regards to name tagging in this instance, we have several versions of the trail appearing on information boards and on our website. Since the initial edit, we have taken the opportunity to discuss this with the local property team and have agreed one version that will be used across all of our promoted materials going forwards. This will be reflected in the name= tag. Other names for the trail, seen on information boards or on the website will be tagged using loc_name= for ease and understanding.

We will also be looking to review how we can integrate the existing start and end points on our website (including addresses, grid references and what 3 words) with OSM going forwards, as we are aware we have not reached a perfect solution at this stage!

Thank you again for the feedback, and please do reach out if you have any further comments or questions.

Hi, thanks for flagging the use of multilingual name - loc_name is perhaps better suited for what was intended here. With regards to the use of grid references in the start and end point, this was done largely to match the website, but we will take the feedback on board and review how we address this on other trails. Thanks again!

I've updated the nodes in the above query based on images taken during our site survey in March. I will ask our local ranger to take a look and confirm the locked status remains the same on each of these. Thanks.

Hi all! Thanks for flagging. The edits on nodes 569708638 & 262689051 which mark them as 'locked=yes' were accidental and made as part of a large walking survey in Borrowdale. These edits have now been corrected after confirmation from the local ranger that these are not locked for pedestrian use - apologies if this created some temporary routing issues. I've noted this scenario as a case study to support our rangers with data capture in the future. Thanks again for verifying the edits - National Trust GIS Paths Team.

Hello! Apologies for the delay, I have just had confirmation from the local Ranger that the gate is not locked so have updated the node. Thanks for flagging.

Hello! Thank you for flagging this! This was edited as part of a walking survey of the site, but it is quite possible that this was accidentally edited or the gate is locked for vehicle use. I have reached out to the local ranger as to confirm and will get back to you as soon as I can! Thanks

Hello! Thank you for flagging this! You are correct in that the gate at node/262689051 is a 3m wooden gate locked for vehicle use. This was edited as part of a walking survey of the site, but it is quite possible that an adjacent stile was accidentally removed. I have reached out to the local ranger as to confirm and will get back to you as soon as I can! Thanks!

Thanks for fixing the typo!

Hi, Thank you for your comment and bringing this to our attention. The error has now been corrected on way/995869124.

Hi Metzor. Thank you for bringing this this to my attention. You correctly identified an accidental edit which I have now corrected. Kind regards, Olivia

Hi Jerry, thank you for your feedback and bringing this to my attention. This has now been corrected. Kind regards, Olivia

Hi! Thank you both for the comments and bringing this to our attention. I've just had confirmation from our local NT ranger that this was marked as no bike / horse access by mistake and is in fact an unclassified minor road open to all traffic. This has now been corrected in OSM.

NB: Due to the low usage & comments from OSM users around the subjectivity of the =discouraged tag, we have opted to use =no in instances where access is discouraged. See the Disused Tags section of our page here: osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

We accept that this is not a perfect solution, and plan to update our discouraged ways (of which there are few) from =no when a suitable alternate tag is upvoted by the community. As ever, we are aware of and looking to utilise the skillset and experience of OSM users, so welcome feedback on the topic.

Hi Phil,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have reached out to the local ranger to understand whether this was a mistake in the original mapping session, or whether it was marked as 'no' on the basis that access is discouraged for those modes of transport on this way.
Will get back to you as soon as I hear more. Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for flagging the spelling error (this should have been designation=permissive_footpath). We will update the tag accordingly.

Hi,
Thanks for your comment. You correctly highlighted a digitising mistake RE: horse access on Kingsway - this has been updated.

RE: way/258344829, the NT ranger felt that track was more appropriate but was not confident that the surface type was correct - happy to be corrected if you are confident in what is on the ground.

Bicycle parking has been added due to the presence of a bike rack at that site, and following tagging guidance bicycle_parking=*.

Thanks.