Sorry Emetas, no answer to my comment, no action on the tagging. I'm reverting this changeset.

Hey galacticism,

Nicely spotted, this was incorrectly mapped for years.

I noticed that the langdyke.org.uk copied info from Natural England
https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6198779198570496

Hi Emetas,
I'm afraid some of the changes are incorrect. You removed the footpath from number of separated cycling/footpaths which isn't right.

way/16730930 - this is still a usable and separate footpath and so is this
way/156168320

Please could you look at correcting tags you have removed?

Also you've changed names for some cycle paths, what's the source of those changes, some comments would be appreciated

I think it would be good, as this would indicate what exactly this store is.

Cheers for sorting this out

Hi Paul,
I found this change and I'm not sure if the name change is actually for the better.
This is the only BHF Home Store (one that accepts and sells furniture) in the area. It makes it quite different from other BHF charity shops. It made sense to call it what it is called on the official BHF website rather than change it to a generic brand.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/find-bhf-near-you?keyword=peterborough&distance=4

BHF website and the shop names make them easly distinguishable for what service they provide.

Would you agree to revert the name to British Heart Foundation Home Store?

Hi Emetas,
I noticed your additions... great job, but you must remember to join pavements with either streets or another pavement.

Just imagine someone staring from here
way/1548272628
and trying to navigate to anywhere. They would be stuck o this loop without a way to move of it. Navigation doesn't jump from pat h to path, it has to have a direct connection.
Something like you did here:
way/1548272625

Anyway, remember about the points above and keep mapping.

Problem with 3D models in OSM is such that not all can be easily shown. If this part would be a semicircle, the piramid roof would try to render in the center of this shape. This would leave a big gap between the nave roof and the altar rounded part.
Because we only care about what's on the outside, some models can be made of patchwork of blocks and shapes to make them look right.

Hey eteb3,
yup this part is needed so I reverted your changeset.

Not sure why you thought this was a separate tower as this is what it look like:
https://www.osmgo.org/bevy.html?way=27065040

I might actually look at improving the cathedral 3D view.

Hej Wiktor,
Fajnie że dodałeś ten stary kawałek torów. Faktycznie nikt o tym wcześniej nie pomyślał.

Ale mam pewne wątpliwości co do tego jak to zrobić.
Na pewno "embankment=yes" można pominąć i może zamiast way zrobić z tego punkt (jako ciekawostkę historyczną bardziej niż rzeczywiste torowisko)?

Just wonder, wouldn't it be better to keep the path in place and mark it as private?
As this is clearly visible in the aerial photos, there's a good chance someone might add it as viable path.

Hi there,
I'm not entirely sure if this area is accessible to wheelchair users. Paths are interrupted by large section of stairs and the surface quality, although it once was tarmac, is almost equal to unpaved paths. I'll stand corrected if you have more up-to-date info but this so called 'park' isn't well maintained.

You can however get to the courtyard of the castle via "Brama Wjazdowa" in a wheelchair without a problem.

Hi Emetas,

Great job and fine contribution but just one thing to look at.
way/1530393136
Because navigation does not allow for jumping from path to path (be it a street or a path) this looks great but isn't actually useful.
So if you can, add junctions to the nearby streets, join with other paths on the other side of the road and then it will work much better.

Anyways, well done and keep up the good work.

Hey cokezero1000,

great addition and a very helpful too.

Just two things:
1. if the path is on the surface, don't use "layer=-1"
2. if a path crosses a building, going under a section of it, you should mark it as "tunnel=building_passage"; i.e way/1302234357

Please try to correct your edit.

Cheers!

Just added a small museum near Fillingham and have exactly the same question... are you sure there's a ridge there? I mean, from the aerial imagery there's nothing there. Is there a better way to mark this?

Also, you might wonder how do people know what has changed in the area, there's a handy tool for that:

https://tyrasd.github.io/latest-changes/#12/52.5833/-0.2682

That's a great edit. One thing to note is that paths must be connected to another routable object (another path or a road), otherwise we could not navigate through that path (not like we probably would in this place).

I made some small additions and reduced the size of the church yard. Don't know if you are aware there are OSMUK Cadastral Parcels available in the Backgrounds/Overlays menu. They show exact size of the plot, be it a church or private property. Sometimes it is helpful to establish where paths or service roads are.

Hi NTTrailsLSE,

Firstly, what a shame you missed the 180000000 changeset ;)
I was curious as to who was late for the round number and came here.

I noticed you are using what3words in your edits. Are you aware of this:
osm.wiki/What3words

Please refrain from adding incompatible data to OSM.

Me to, but only because we marked the 180000000 changeset
2026-03-18

Just came to check if this one is still here ;) Especially now when we went past 180,000,000 changesets
changeset/180000000

Ian, would you know if this pipeline is still in use? and if so is this still fuel