Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Thanks for adding all this detail above Sowerby Bridge.
Just one thing to have a look at though - for "separate sidewalks" to work for routing they'll need to connect up though, because routers aren't capable of "jumping gaps". You can test routing using the buttons at the top left of osm.org. As an example osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=53.705627%2C-1.940629%3B53.705699%2C-1.940964#map=18/53.705111/-1.941761 is an attempt to route along the south of Towngate.
As an example, I've joined way/1426928386 to the road where it ends near the Rushcart.
If you want to indicate that there is a kerb there you can do so with a barrier=kerb node - see osm.wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dkerb .
Best Regards,
Andy.
PS: Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

This is a Potlatch revisit of the iD editing done in 173756742 through 173759875. Everything in here was either not possible to do in iD or wasn't done because the track display in iD wasn't clear enough.

Thanks!

Hello,
NCN1 seems a bit odd at relation/15978999#map=19/52.962852/-0.021894 . It turns off the main road and then stops. There's a footpath that continues north, but that isn't tagged as allowing cycle access. Then the cycle route continues on the main road.
Further north relation/15978999#map=19/52.964399/-0.022771 there are another couple of odd gaps?
To look for gaps you can use https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=15978999 and then zoom in.
Best Regards,
Andy

Alas, talk of "fiction" here seems to have put this mapper off contributing - they made no more edits after this.
I walked along Apperley Road last night and noticed some problems remain, such as you can see at
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=53.836212%2C-1.718577%3B53.835857%2C-1.7184#map=19/53.836098/-1.717636 .
I do have GPS markers of where the footpaths north and south of Apperley Road stop and start so I will (in the next month or so) update things. The other ones that haven't been tidied up further south will need to wait for local mappers as it isn't practical to do this stuff remotely.
Best Regards,
Andy

> not sure I fully understood what you meant

In my 29th and 30th changes is was still learning how to map things - "Is X better mapped as a Y or a Z": https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/26579848 . changeset/719269 was my 30th changeset, and if you look at the history of something in that https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/26579848 you can see a bit of flip-flopping between values.

@pitscheplatsch To be honest, in my 29th and 30th changesets I'm sure I was doing that too...

Hallo,
Hier ist Andy von der OSM-Datenarbeitsgruppe. Zunächst einmal vielen Dank an euch beide für euren Versuch, eine vernünftige Diskussion zu führen, anstatt einfach nur zurückzusetzen bzw. die Rücksetzung rückgängig zu machen.
Ein paar Dinge müssen jedoch klargestellt werden. Erstens ist OpenStreetMap eine Karte der aktuell existierenden Dinge. Wenn alte Gebäude abgerissen und durch neue ersetzt werden, behalten wir die alten Gebäude nicht dauerhaft in OSM, sondern löschen sie. Die alten Daten sind natürlich weiterhin zugänglich – führen Sie einfach eine Überführungssuche in den OSM-Daten durch, bevor das Gebäude gelöscht wurde.
Zweitens ist es absolut richtig, dass, wenn Eisenbahnen nicht mehr als Eisenbahnen genutzt werden und die Gleise entfernt werden, oft Infrastruktur (Brücken, Böschungen usw.) erhalten bleibt, und es ist völlig in Ordnung, diese verbleibende Infrastruktur als „railway=abandoned“ oder ähnlich zu kartieren. Wenn jedoch wirklich nichts mehr übrig ist, ist es nicht in Ordnung, diesen Tag zu verwenden. Ein Beispiel dafür, wo scheinbar nichts mehr übrig ist (zumindest auf den Bildern basierend), findet sich gleich neben diesem Änderungssatz unter osm.org/#map=19/50.766415/7.191619. Offenbar ist railway=abandoned dort nicht der richtige Tag.
Es stimmt zwar, dass es in Foren viele Diskussionen über die Kartierung ehemaliger Bahnstrecken gab, von denen keine Spuren mehr zu sehen sind. Ich denke jedoch, dass es eine klare Mehrheit gibt, die glaubt, dass „Dinge, die nicht mehr existieren und daher nicht mehr vermessen werden können, nicht in OSM gehören“. Der Vollständigkeit halber sei erwähnt, dass es auch eine bedeutende Minderheit gibt, die glaubt, dass OSM abgerissene und nicht mehr vermessbare Bahninfrastruktur enthalten sollte, und eine weitere bedeutende Minderheit ist der Meinung, dass etwas, das im Jahr 2025 keine Eisenbahnlinie ist, nicht mit dem Tag „Eisenbahn“ kartiert werden sollte.
Wer Karten nicht mehr existierender Eisenbahnstrecken mag, sollte die Stimmung besser einschätzen und sich bemühen, Beiträge in OpenHistoricalMap einzubringen, denn die Richtung ist klar. Ein weiterer klarer Vorteil von OpenHistoricalMap ist die Möglichkeit, Start- und Enddaten für alles hinzuzufügen, was in OSM gar nicht so einfach ist.
Eine Herausforderung stellt die Lizenz dar – die Lizenz von OSM stimmt nicht mit der von OHM überein, daher muss die Person, die die Daten zu OSM hinzugefügt hat, klarstellen, welche Lizenzen verwendet wurden, bevor die Daten übertragen werden können.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. First things first, thanks to both of you for trying to have a sensible discussion here rather than than just reverting / unreverting.
However, a couple of things need to be made clear. The first is that OpenStreetMap is a map of things that currently exist. As old buildings are demolished and replaced with new ones, we don't keep the old buildings in OSM in perpetuity, we delete them. The old data is still accessible of course - just do an overpass search on OSM data before the building was deleted.
Secondly, it's absolutely true that when railways stop being used as railways and the tracks are removed, some infrastructure often remains (bridges, embankments, etc.), and it's perfectly OK to map that remaining infrastructure as "railway=abandoned" or similar. However, when there is really nothing left, it isn't OK to use that tag. An example of where there appears to be nothing left (at least based on imagery) is just down the road from this changeset at osm.org/#map=19/50.766415/7.191619 . It looks like railway=abandoned is not the right tag to use there.
It's correct to say that there have been a lot of forum discussions about mapping former railway lines where no trace exists on the ground. However I think that there IS a clear majority that believes that "things that no longer exist and hence cannot be surveyed do not belong in OSM". For completeness there's also a significant minority that believes that OSM should contain razed and unsurveyable railway infrastructure, and another significant minority that believes that something that is not in 2025 a railway should not be mapped with a "railway" tag.
People who like maps of no-longer-existing railways really do need to "read the room" a bit better and do what they can to get their contributions into OpenHistoricalMap, because it's pretty clear which way this is all going. Another clear advantage of OpenHistoricalMap is the ability to add start and end dates for everything, something that isn't at all easy to do in OSM.
A challenge is the licence - OSM's licence doesn't match OHM's so the person who added the data to OSM needs to make clear what licences was used before it can be transferred.

@pitscheplatsch what does "Revert of changeset/154734941" mean? Both are changesets in iD by the same user.

Hello,
See changeset/173539410
Best Regards,
Andy

Diskuterades något av följande med den bredare svenska gemenskapen:
1) Det ursprungliga tillägget av en ny kartläggare som deras första changeset för 6 dagar sedan changeset/173402413
2) Borttagningen här
3) Återställningen av borttagningen changeset/173577171 .
ALLA skulle ha gynnats av en bredare diskussion i gemenskapen.

Were any of the following discussed with the wider Swedish community:
1) The original addition by a new mapper as their first changeset 6 days ago changeset/173402413
2) The deletion here
3) The revert of the deletion changeset/173577171 .
ALL would have benefited from wider community discussion.

Thanks!

I'm guessing that "Pudey" in some of these names should perhaps be "Pudsey"?

(for info see also changeset/172948051 , where someone from Sustrans was tidying these up).

Hello,
Just wondered - do you know what the difference is between relation/123318 and relation/19284290 ? They both look like superroutes of NCN5, but with slightly different constituents?
Best Regards,
Andy

The "other" NCN5 superroute is relation/123318 , and by the version number, that looks like the older one. I'll ask the person who created the duplicate if they're in the middle of tidying it up.

Doing the same for "National Cycle Network Route 5" we get to relation/19284284 (you'll notice when you click something the URL bar changes). You can also see on that "browse" page that it says "Part of 1 relation Relation 5 (19284290) (as main)".
That's the "superroute" (a "relation of relations", created because individual relation size is limited).
That has 10 members:
" Relation 5 (359098) as main
Relation 5 (19284288) as main
Relation 5 (19284285) as main
Relation National Cycle Network Route 5 (19284284) as main
Relation 5 (19284287) as alternative
Relation 5 (19284286) as alternative
relation/9466687 as connection
relation/9466685 as connection
relation/9466688 as connection
relation/9466686 as connection"

So that's 4 main parts, two "alternatives" and 4 connections. You can click on each of those on that page to see what they are.

I have to say that relation/17077005 looks like rubbish, because (a) it's proposed and does not exist yet, (b) it's a "collection" rather than an actual route and (c) it's added by mrpacmanmap, who is, ... not the most reliable contributor. So I think we can draw a veil over that one.