👍

Don’t worry, you’re acting in good faith and have been trying to improve the map, and that’s valued!

Deleting everything you’ve ever added to the map would be quite a loss, and quite hard to achieve. It’s an option used as a last resort for when people are not acting in good faith.

One way forward would be for you to spend a little bit of time double checking your edits against sources of information which are safe to use on OSM. You said you’d checked some of your more local pipeline/markers with a survey, so they’re all absolutely fine to be on OSM. Perhaps for the further afield ones, you could double-check against Bing Streetside imagery, or geograph photos (https://www.geograph.org.uk/), which are both fine to use on OSM. It’s basically all about finding corroborating sources of evidence which are OK to use — and then using the same approach with new edits in future.

I hope this doesn’t discourage you! I personally find these pipeline infrastructure additions to the map quite interesting, so I hope you continue :)

I’ve added a missing footpath and further updated the road access tagging as per the council definitive map in changeset/189103440

If you look at Bing Streetside, a sign is visible at the west end of the road, and at the south end of Hoo Lane, indicating they’re private. (I know this, I’m local, I’ve previously read the signs.)

The original editor, PMCALL, looks local and will have local knowledge. I would defer to that unless there’s good evidence to the contrary, rather than armchair mapping a significant change to the access permissions.

> it is also technically still public access if not signed as private with no entry to the public

Not really. That’s quite a complex area of law, but tl;dr you don’t need to put up a private sign for something to be private. There is implied permission to go along someone’s drive to knock on their door, but definitely no implied permission of through route.

Nice work! :)

Hiya, what’s your source for this? Your edit directly contradicts the information given in changeset/189064619. I believe that changeset was correct (the road is private) even if they got the tagging wrong.

If there’s evidence for way/1256861287 on the NLS maps, and there isn’t evidence for way/1256861290, then please go ahead and delete the latter. :)

As I said, I was much less sure of the route through Manchester when originally adding the pipeline, and the NLS maps are quite busy around there so don’t show the pipeline route very clearly.

You mean this segment? way/1256861290

That’s a question for tms13 as they added it in changeset/148131110. Unfortunately there are no sources tagged on the changeset.

For my edits (e.g. changeset/72707155) I used the OS New Popular Edition historic map. It doesn’t show up under that name on the NLS any more, but a similar map would be https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=15.1&lat=53.51664&lon=-2.29918&layers=6&right=ESRIWorld

Thanks for confirming! I’ll add a note to it to indicate that, as otherwise someone will likely remove the name in future, thinking it’s a descriptive name.

Heya, just to check, is this recycling area actually physically signposted as ‘Recycle Point’, or are you adding a name as a description of what it is?

Heya, thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately using Google Streetview is absolutely not compatible with OSM. The licensing they provide that data under is not compatible with the licensing for OSM. See osm.wiki/Google for some more information about it.

The only street-side imagery which is OK to use for editing OSM is Bing Streetside, as it has different licensing terms. You can enable that within the ID editor by selecting it within the ‘Map Data’ panel on the right, which might make things easier :)

Regarding the National Gas Ten Year Statement, their copyright (page 67) doesn’t allow for reuse without attributing National Gas. I believe that means it’s incompatible with OSM’s licensing, as OSM would require explicit permission from National Gas to use it. I am not a lawyer though.

Typically, I think the way data like this _can_ be used safely is to use it as the basis for a survey. If the Ten Year Statement gives you an indication of where a gas pipe might be, then you look on Streetside and see a pipeline marker, that’s all good. If you then survey the pipeline marker and it has the pipeline diameter written on it, that’s also good. But copying the diameters straight from the Ten Year Statement would not be allowed (it also might not be accurate!).

Sorry to be the harbinger of bad news, but it is important that we get the licensing of the data in OSM correct, otherwise there’s the risk that the whole map could be taken down by a copyright claim from someone.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding of such licensing has been built over several years, so I think it’s largely correct. If you’d like a second opinion about it then please do start a thread on the community forums (https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86), or talk to the data working group (osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group) for advice about how to proceed and improve the map in a way which doesn’t have copyright risks :)

Hello! Thanks for your message, I’ve replied, but also wanted to pop in here and say thanks to tms13 for pointing you in my direction. I have a long standing interest in the Thirlmere and Haweswater aqueducts, so any improvements to them are welcome. I’m much less familiar with the southern extents of them than the bits further north.

I meant to say: it’s visible on Streetside imagery, which I believe dates from July 2019 at the moment. So there’s definitely scope for it having been removed!

Had it previously been removed? I did this edit mostly from Bing Streetside imagery (as noted in the changeset tagging), rather than a survey.

If you think it had been removed, and I’ve incorrectly added it back, I could change it to removed:amenity=telephone to avoid someone accidentally adding it back in future while it’s still on Streetside imagery.

Hi, I’ve seen a lot of edits like this from you recently. They look useful, but I’d like to double check your sources, as they need to be compatible with OSM’s licensing in order to be used on the map.

Which street view service are you using? And what is the license on the data in the National Gas 10 year plan?

There’s some more information on copyright/licensing and the need for compatible licenses on osm.wiki/Copyright#Proprietary_data

Happy to answer any questions about it :)

I’m assuming it was accidental and have removed it in changeset/188516207, let me know if that’s not correct, thanks!

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. It’s a map which needs to be useful to everyone, so please refrain from adding personal notes/games to it, thanks.

No worries, I understand you were using StreetComplete and what its limitations are. It’s a great tool!

I’ve edited the map to add that detail in changeset/188360494, thanks for your help! :)

It’s nothing to do with my opinion of the wiki, it’s to do with the need for a way to document and achieve community consensus on what tags mean. Not everyone’s interpretation of “one feature, one element” is always going to be the same.

I shall get off my soapbox though :) Thanks again for your surveying and edits in the area, and I look forward to seeing more of them if you’re planning more while you’re in the area.

While I agree with your reasoning, I try to follow the wiki with mapping. The alternative to that is ending up with mappers and data consumers interpreting things differently and all thinking they’re doing something reasonable. The wiki forces discussion and consensus leading to a shared understanding (even if it’s not exactly what each party would do if left to their own devices).

If you feel strongly about this I suggest you should start a discussion somewhere appropriate about changing the wiki guidance for gates.

I’ll try and find time to undelete those nodes shortly.