I originally put it in as permissive, not public, but someone deleted that and the 'foot' tag, so it really has no information left. I am happy for you to delete it.

I expect it was there when I walked and recorded it, but I really can't remember the context - it was 10 years ago. I no longer have the gps traces. I would have no objection to you changing or deleting it in the light of new evidence.

OKthanks for the response. I'll revert the ones I know are streams as and when I come across them when I'm editing in the area - I don't see any urgency in it.

I notice you have changed some waterways in my area from stream to ditch. These are part of the natural watershed drainage, and I would consider stream better. A ditch is generally an artificial channel to control the water table around, say, a field.

I am sure you are right in principle. But on Lowick common streams are both rather common and rather indistinct. General marshy areas are the rule! Sometimes with stepping stones, sometimes just wet moss. What you see on OS OpenDataStreetmap doesn't always match what's actually there. My normal procedure is to put in a ford if the track is vehicular, but not if it's just pedestrian. For a bridle path, it depends what it looks like on the ground.
Please feel free to change my mapping if you think it should be.
Regards, Roger.

I can't easily point you to an existing problem. JOSM detects them when I try to upload changes. But I have found a location where a problem could have occurred. Ways 813466089, 813466088 and 813471435 form a tiny triangle only a couple of metres high.This triangle is in none of the three fields. If the node joining the first two ways (7592969598) was a few metres further south, the triangle would be in two fields simultaneously.The key is that any coincident ways must share all their nodes in the region they coincide. The node should also be on the third way, so there is no overlap space.
I can't find a way of attaching a picture illustrating this, but if you email me on jrogercalvert@gmail.com I will send one.
Regards, Roger

Hi Artasen!
I have been doing some mapping in the Lowick area, and I see that you have done a lot of adding field boundaries. Well done for a major effort!
But in a number of cases, when I uploaded my changes, it found errors in yours. Generally these were when the boundaries of adjacent fields overlapped each other (probably only by a very small amount). I have corrected those which came up, but there may be others, and there may be cases where there is a small gap between the boundaries, though this matters less because there is no ambiguity. You may like to look at these.
The key is, when you have two coincident boundaries, the corresponding nodes must be in exactly the same places.
Best regards,
Rogerc

Thanks, lakedistrict. I will take your advice. The reason I did it was that I found Gleaston was not showing up well an the rendered map (I was there yesterday), but probably changing it to village would help on that.

I forgot to make a note as we walked past, and could not remember afterwards whether it was steps or a ramp. Thanks for confirming it as steps - I will change it now!

Consulting a few locals resulted in a majority for Barrow Road, but some for Abbey Road.
I have changed it back to Abbey Road on the grounds of the postal address of some firms located on it. I have left Barrow Road as an alternative (alt_name).

In walking along most of this road, I could not find any road name signs. I took the name Barrow Road from OS OpenData StreetView. It appears that this disagrees with OS OpenData Locator.
I note that Google Maps call it Abbey Road, while Bing maps call it Barrow Road. How does one choose?