Thanks - re the gates as lines, any suggestion about how to render them better than https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21&lat=53.2683976&lon=-1.6100976 would be gratefully received!

Hi Dudley,
I know it was 8 years ago, but just on the off change, any idea what "stile=g" might be on node/2164688539 might be?
Cheers,
Andy

ome of these outliers (all surveyed!) are a bit odd - see e.g. the one on 66 at relation/17883#map=14/53.9548/-1.0846 .
There's also a discrepancy between "sign has brackets" and "sign should have brackets", but that isn't even surveyed yet.

Hello,
It's ages since I've been there, but I always assumed that routeway 4 went round the north of the wall rather than down to the Coach Road and up.
Currently there's an extra spur: relation/1701381#map=19/53.05652/-1.37102 . If the route is signed to the south now, I guess that the northern bit can be removed from the route.
Cheers,
Andy

Just for information - you'ev added back some tags to way/990518388 , but that won't actually mean anything because it's part of relation/13297971 . Anything that processes it with osm2pgsql will use the tags on the relation (which are the same)

Thanks - I believe most or all the personal names are redacted now. I've left e.g. way/927888428 ("AL SINDICATO AGRARIO DE LA COMUNIDAD KALLUTACA").

Hello,
What is the source for the names used here?
Best Regards,
Andy

What was the source of this data?

See also https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/387#issuecomment-1015492327 .

Hi Joost,
I'm separately dealing with a DWG ticket to remove the personal information from some of these.
Can you let me know when you've finished your changes so that I can revert and if necessary redact the personal information?
Just commenting here will be fine - I'll see the email.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Hello AlexChebs and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I hope you don't mind me asking, but - can you please explain what your source for your additions is?
The reason that I mention it is that in the past there has been "odd editing activity" of the place nodes here from editors based overseas. If you're familiar with the local area, then great - we can ask you the next time there are dubious additions here!
Any other questions - please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group

Hello Korbier and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Can you please explain what your source for your additions is? I’m sure that the names that you have added in this changeset are not visible on Bing aerial imagery.
Best Regards,
Andy

There are around 9 top-level NCN1s in the UK. Some are superroutes, most (like this one) are not. Many (like this one) have sub-relations. A reorganisation would likely be beneficial.

The gaps I've filled in are mostly just "obvious gaps" where the gap had already been added to e.g. EV12 (which is contiguous with a lot of this NCN1). I haven't added amy large sections unlikely to be part of NCN1 any more since https://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-us/paths-for-everyone/ happened - though I suspect that many parts of relation/9579 may need to be removed per the fixme tag on it.

Hello,
I wonder if you could help? Something looks a bit wrong at way/712554192/history#map=19/55.29594/-1.56911 - there's a duplicate path way/587486200 in addition to the road way/706462585#map=16/55.2928/-1.5708 . The imagery suggests that there is only one thing here - the road - and the Northumberland Coast Path relation/11508166 runs along it.
Presumably these duplicate "paths" should be deleted?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Do you know how way/128609899 comments to other roads at the east, and whether cycling on the highway=pedestrial here is allowed? I noticed some gaps in relation/62824 , which in turn led me to this.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I'm not sure what happened here or how it ws possible, but somehow way/523737555 got added to the AONB relation twice - once with a role, once without. I've removed it in changeset/116423272 .
Cheers,
Andy

survey 3/1/2022, tr8456b and tr8457a

There were 3 breakages in EV12, and at the same place also breakages in NCN1 and Yorkshire Wolds Cycle Route. I changed WoR to not go round 2 sides of a triangle.

To be fair, the Highway Code's pretty clear about not cycling on the pavement :)

The "OSM default" for highway=footway is "whatever the law is" locally (and that often varies at a lower level than a country). Sometimes it's useful to add "bicycle=yes" (where it really is allowed) or "bicycle-no" (you you would otherwise think it might be allowed - I suspect way/886555770 is one of those).
Generally speaking, it's not needed. For example, in central Birmingham (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1f4N ) 149 of 3.4k "highway=footway" ways have "bicycle" tags.