Just shows how easy it is to accidentally double click and create something inadvertently. I’m glad you follow up and fix this stuff. Thanks for the advice.

Excellent, I had no idea we could do that. Thank you. Ocean.

Hello again Bernard. Many thanks for correcting this. This time, it really was one of my changesets that you amended (the Coastwatch Lookout). So I am curious to know now - what did I do wrong, and how did you know? Any advice welcome.

Hi Bernard, many thanks. I guess it is just a coincidence then, that just after I added some items in Padstow, you edited the ferry routes (which were not my changeset, so I don’t mind at all). I just wanted to double check that it was not me inadvertently causing you the issue, as this coincidence has happened before. Thanks for your help last year - you got me started and I’ve done quite a bit since then. I am enjoying this mapping a lot now. Ocean

Hi - can you help me with a query? I’ve noticed on several occasions that after I make an edit, you come along a few days later and do “removing duplicated section of way”. I am doing something that is causing a problem?

Perfect, thank you for clarifying.

Hi - just a polite enquiry about the item ‘Batchworth Lock Rubbish Disposal’ which appears to be inside a building site. I could see no trace of it. Do you know if it is going to be re- instated on completion of the site? Or is it somewhere there but outside the building site?

Interesting. In the south east corner of this route, in between Bury Lane and Riverside Drive there is a path through the Bury grounds that still has a relation ‘Alternative Chorleywood to Rickmansworth (proposed)’. Do you know if that is now redundant?

I suspect a typo here. Mo-We close time is 23:00 I think.

Dear Dave, thanks for helping me, I am learning a lot. Firstly, I apologise for the comment where I referenced Go Map!! - that comment was not helpful, and it obscured the point I was trying to make, and has made this conversation more difficult. But I am still a bit unclear, and welcome your advice. I have looked at other relations in our neighbourhood - for example the cycle route 'NCN National Route 6' which is tagged as a relation, made up of smaller ways, but all of it forming part of an organised Cycling route. So this is the structure that I used to map these footpaths in exactly the same way. Before I do any more mapping, I want to understand why this way is correct for cycle paths, but not footpaths. Your help is appreciated. I am seeking help, not an argument, and I am sorry it is coming across a bit too accusatory.

I disagree that no data has been removed - the relations have definitely been removed. Your changes haven’t added any value, they have only removed some. A relation doesn’t need to be a route - the role of the relation is optional. “A relation is a group of elements. To be more exact it is one of the core data elements that consists of one or more tags and also an ordered list of one or more nodes, ways and/or relations as members which is used to define logical or geographic relationships between other elements”. In my case the relation is the footpath, made up of other related elements, even if that is only one or two ways. They are still on the map, I agree, but the fact that they are part of an organised whole is now missing.

I feel that removing these relations is a step backwards. I know you pointed me to a different tool, but I am using Go Map on an iPhone, and I can no longer select the whole route of these footpaths without switching to a different tool. Definitely a step backwards. Where in the wiki does it say these relations are forbidden?

Thanks. I hadn’t heard of that site before- I’ll check it out.

Hi Dave, thanks for correcting this. I am always keen to learn best practice. I can't help noticing, however, that without that relation, it is now not possible to select the whole of the footpath in one go and see its whole route. I have probably done a couple more footpaths in this area in the same way. Ocean.