AH yes. In-person hadn't occurred to me (I hadn't realised you were in Cambridge too). The weather is nice so that sounds like a good plan. I've actually got to be in Histon for an annual medical check-up at 12:30. I think that will take 1.5 hours or so but it's also a bit uncertain so actually I should be coming back through town around 2pm-2:30pm. Would coming to find you in Peterhouse be a good plan then? Lunch would be nice but it might be a bit late for that in which case we can presumably find somewhere to chat anyway?

es I am based in Cambridge. A chat would be good.
I suggest https://jitsi.debian.social/kesterlesternwookey (but I think that requires you to have a salsa login which you probably don't have unless you happen also to be a debian contributor - try it - can you just click on that URL and get a video call or not?.
If not use https://meet.jit.si/kesterlesternwookey works for everyone

I'm busy for the rest of today but anytime
wed after 1pm (till about 3am) would work.
Or thur. Then I'm away for a week walking.

I also just (yesterday!) joined #osm-infrastructure matrix channel
which is intended for discussing this stuff
https://matrix.to/#/!CJjtKctuARcgdacUzh:matrix.org?via=matrix.org&via=one.ems.host&via=nobelium.no
sadly the 'make a call' functionality is disabled there, but once on
matrix you can just click to call me personally, audio or video.

Your edit to add 'gas topology' in southern Cambridge has resulted in most/much/all of the gas network being in the map twice. Once as the actual pipelines and once as a more approximate 'gas topology' network, often with the pipelines routed in places they do not exist.
I'd like to resolve this but I'm not sure how to proceed. Where did this topological information come from? It may add useful information where the pipelines connectivity is not otherwise known? Is there any reason why I should not remove it, at least in the area from Cherry Hinton to Addenbrookes where I am pretty certain that the existing pipeline routing is correct.

OK. It's done now. This has taken me all day to sort out so I'm not going to do any more in the area for now!

Hi Tristan. Looks like we both did a pile of building editing in Surlingham at the weekend which has rather unfortunately overlapped. I've been correcting alignment and building shapes, whilst you've been adding housenumbers and also correcting shapes.
Result is 132 conflicts on my upload. I'll try to resolve everything so as to not lose anything but you might want to check back in case I mess anything up. There are a great many buildings in twice now.

Hi. I saw your note about a segment of the old road being deleted by you didn't know how to move NCN51 (and Bernwood Forest Loop) over to the new bridge. I've fixed that today. (along with footpath and power lines north of Claydon Park).

Ah I see what you mean. It's a house. Fixed.

Clearly I managed to merge two sets of changes into one changeset. The shed at the back of the ARM building in Cambridge, and the changes around fieldside farm in Keswick. Making an unhelpfully huge bounding box. I find this is perhaps too easy to do in both Vespucci and JOSM and it happens to me every so often.
Apologies for that.

Typo for 'cycleway'. Thanks for spotting. Fixed.
The meaning is that there is an advanced stop box for bikes (in the forward direction): (details near the bottom of cycleway=* )

Ah no. I see what you mean. The gorge de nouailles is in France at Moutier Haute-pierre.,a place I also visited on this trip (probably the day before I got to Donauschingen) So that's not right for this wier on the Donau. Not sure what happened there. Cut-and paste error in vespucci, I suppose. Feel free to fix it.

There was a sign on the building giving that as the address.

My Dutch (Flemish?) isn't great but I think you are asking if the drinking water fountain is public or only for campers.
That's a good question. The campsite is easily accessible to pedestrians and cyclists and the fountain is mounted by a sort of 'seating sculpture' so it very much has the air of a public park. and it's a municipal campsite. So in practice anyone passing can use it to fill bottles/have a drink. Exactly what the legal status of water fountains in municipal campsites is in Belgium, I don't know.

I put these in temporarily whilst using vespucci as I didn't know the right tags. I thought I had fixed them all afterwards in JOSM after looking up the tags, but it seems I missed two. I've fixed those now. Thanks for spotting that.

There is only one (quite high quality) track on that whole route from the farm buildings (bottom left) to the tree belts (top right), despite the doubled paths that appear on bing imagery and https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gPO
There is a grass path from that crossover point going downhill across the field, but it's not strong and could easily change from year to year - it's mostly how the grass has been cut. After editing last night I left it as connecting to the farmyard as that was indicated by previous edits and the imagery, but I'm not sure that is still true.

I spent a while last night removing parallel track/footpath/bridleway instances in this area and getting the designations/permissions right (SFAIK).
Next time I visit I'll have a proper look at this area to make sure it is correct. It has clearly changed a few times over the last few years.
The NT have changed quite a lot around Wimpole over the last couple of years (new carpark, major new paths, closing major paths, resurfaced tracks like this one, (that was probably 3-4 years ago actually)). Those works may partially explain the appearing/disappearing parallel routes here, although some of what was there is definitely just duplicate mapping.

So to answer your question clearly: No the northern parallel path does not exist. There is a (much less permanent) southern secondary path, but I'm not sure it's correctly aligned in current OSM.

Yes. Well spotted. I got a conflict on this object and josm wouldn't let me resolv it as 'leave the other version' (that left the 'resolve' button greyed out. So I had to give my version.

Now ideally JOSM wouldn't be including objects from another trip a month ago and miles away, and I did try to 'purge' everything in the data layer outside the chipping norton zone, but this was clearly still there (possibly becuse it was a deletion?), and I don't know how to make it 'only upload stuff within given rectangle'.

I keep ending up with this problem because I use Vespucci, but it can't upload anything directly, so I end up saving an osc file, tidying it up in JOSM and uploading, but the vespucci file just gets bigger every time covering everywhere I have mapped in the last 4 months. I've not found out how to reset that either.

I found 'purge' this time which does seem to have removed everything from Nottingham, but not this change in Fowlmere.

If you know how to fix any of these things (vespucci 'backlog' reset, vespucci uploads, JOSM area restriction on changesets, or how to tell it to just forget about a particular conflict) I'm all ears, otherwise I'll try and work it out.

And yes I'll sort this deleted way out too. Thanks for the prod.

I wrote a long response but it refuses to post. Here is the short version.
Having read the docs you reference, that does indeed show that the brook is no longer a continuous stream so your correction is right. I foolishly assumed that a stream would be continuous.
Thanks for checking up so thoroughly.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115944719

OK. fixed. I've also found that vespucci tends to snap to nearby nodes, even though that's not what is shown on the screen, so far too many of my benches and signs are mapped in the middle of the cycle route or attached to other nearby ways. I'm working through fixing about 100 of them.

Yes thanks for the reminder. I do know that, but the limitations of using vespucci whilst cycling make it hard to avoid such 'approximations'. I'm going over all the stuff I uploaded 'live' this week over the next few days to fix all that sort of stuff.

Hmm. I see what you mean. There is the field entrance adjacent to the footpath. I couldn't for sure say there was no bridleway but I only remember the coast path sign, and noting that the route was changed (it used to continue along the road another km). The footpath is very narrow and overgrown - too narrow to be a bridleway and I'm not sure that the gat at the northern end was horse-friendly. I checked on the county definitive map and it's a footpath there (and that bridleway across the gold course is indeed not the right route). So yes I'll remove the duplicate bridleway. Thanks for the heads-up. (I'm just trying to fix the remaining connectivity and ordering issues on the whole 'Ceridigion coast path' relation. These major long path relations are tricky!)

The ways are unusual. There is a large open-sided shed covering an area of marked out roads (and ramps), clearly for something like taking driving tests or testing vehicles.
I was unable to find a suitable tag so I guess made one up. All the other roads in the facility are 'service' (and maybe private, although I've not marked them as such as that wasn't clear). I feel these undercover test-facility ways should be marked differently somehow, but am happy to take your advice on how as test_track is not a recognised tag and thus they don't get rendered.