This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/126599332 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names from a suspect source; see osm.org/user_blocks/6295

Hi John,
I'm guessing that the "access=private" on way/606110459/history might be a copy and paste faux pas from the other (genuinely private) ways in the allotments? According to local authority data (turn the LA PRoW layer on at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18&lat=53.383838&lon=-1.524852 ) it's definitely a public footpath, so assuming that highway=footway is correct, "access=private" probably isn't correct.
See also changeset/125817813 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
On St Peter's Passage (way/723566599/history etc.) is the "access=private" unnecessary now, since it's now added as a PRoW? It got caught up in changeset/125817813 ; I'm guessing that what happened was that it looked private to the person who originally mapped it (perhaps because of the gate).
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I'm just trying to understand the tagging on way/692395103/history . It got caught up in an "automated edit" in changeset/125817813 - I suspect that the access=private probably shouldn't be there as it's a highway=footway with designation=public_footpath, so the access=private doesn't really add anything. Or maybe another tag needs changing?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Is the path to the north of Sainsburys at way/988383309/history really a public footpath? It seems unlikely, unless it's some sort of historic route through what is now a shopping centre.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I wonder if way/907724053/history and way/907724052 might actually be partially the same here? I noticed the first of these because the tags were caught up in an "automated edit" that someone did in changeset/125817813 , but looking a bit closer, it looks a bit more complicated than just one odd tag. As well as the potentially duplicated ways, some of way/907724053 looks like it might still be wide enough for 4-wheel traffic (so the access=private might make sense there) but some not.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I wonder if way/871973291/history might have a designation tag on it by accident? The public footpath is mapped as going east and south here; a private track goes west. Maybe the designation tag got copied on here by accident?
See also discussion on changeset/125817813 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I'm trying to understand the tag combination on way/993439675/history . It's "access=private" on a "highway=footway" that is also "designation=public_footpath". I'm guessing that the "access=private" came by accident from the adjacent track, and doesn't need to be on this footway (it's foot=designated, and no other modes of transport have any implied access, so access=private doesn't really do anything here).
See also discussion on changeset/125817813 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello, I'm just trying to understand the tagging on way/1015887915 and the adjacent ways here. Is there logic behind the "access=private" tagging on thngs that are "designation=public_footpath" and "highway=footway"? It doesn't look obviously like it's the highway tag that is wrong.

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset/126029718.