Hiya, thanks for your contribution to OpenStreetMap.

I’ve undone these changes as the ford was already correctly mapped here: it’s a public right of way, so needs to be mapped. The impassability of it was already tagged with various tags.

changeset/178948274

(Replied on changeset/178522105, let’s keep discussion there)

Hiya, thanks for your reply and sorry for the slowness of mine.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to try and improve the map to help people stay out of trouble. It’s good to have more local knowledge in the map :)

I think the correct fix here is for those navigation apps to render walls with different lifecycle prefixes, in much the same way that Harveys render abandoned walls in grey (rather than black).

Do you know which apps people are using most commonly? It would be worth one of us approaching them to improve their rendering of the data.

In terms of getting abandoned walls to render on openstreetmap.org itself, that would need an issue report to be filed here: https://github.com/openstreetmap-carto/openstreetmap-carto/issues

The difference between in-use, disused and abandoned walls is a bit of a matter of personal judgement. I’d say that ones which are no longer sheep-proof should be tagged as disused or abandoned. Maybe disused if they are mostly whole but with some fallen down sections, and abandoned if they’re worse than that. ruins:barrier=wall if they’re just a low mound of rock or have been robbed out.

That said, sheep can get over anything if they want to!

Super, thanks for checking :)

Nice work!

Great, it looks like it is now correctly tagged. Thanks for clarifying! :D

Should this one have motor_vehicle=private on it, if only authorised (e.g. council) vehicles are allowed on it?

Hi, thanks for your attention to detail, but I’ve reverted this change because the walls were already correctly tagged as present but abandoned using a lifecycle prefix: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Reverted as changeset/178524173

I’ve reverted these changes as changeset/178512903. If you don’t think that’s right, please say and we can collaborate on the best tagging :)

Oh excellent, glad they’re helpful. Happy to chat about things if you have any questions or anything :)

oops, the source should reference changeset/177868954, not 177988440.

> I don't see the point in spelling out changes that are already documented

This changeset spans a third of the length of the UK, and will show up in lots of people’s review filters on osmcha.org.

By not spending 10 seconds to write a useful changeset message, you are making those people to all load the changeset and read and understand every change in it in order to review the changeset.

Hiya, what’s the reasoning for this change?

Generally it’s not correct to set the access= tag on a footway, because access= sets the access permissions for *all* vehicle types (motor vehicle, truck, hovercraft, foot, horse, etc.).

If this is a permissive footpath, then all that should be needed to mark it as such is foot=permissive.

bicycle=no and horse=no could be added to make it really clear they’re not allowed on this path (if that’s the case).

Hope that makes sense. Happy to discuss it further if I’ve misunderstood the situation! :)

Hiya, please remember to add a description of your changeset — see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

‘Tags added’ could describe pretty much any changeset ever ;)

Nice work, and thank you for taking the time to align the imagery to Cadastral Parcels first :D

I added the missing kerb nodes in changeset/178306462, because they’re important for accessible routing (wheelchairs). The specific height of kerbs can be surveyed using StreetComplete later.

I’ll get out of your way though, happy mapping!

I’ve surveyed this in person now and the numbering is correct as per this changeset

Agreed, it is a confusing layout and that’s probably caused by historical changes. Thanks for taking another look at it :)

Heya, are you sure this link road is one-way? If so, that would mean the north end of way/42727781 is one-way, but it has a central lane marking and no one-way arrows.

Additionally, I don’t think there’s a no entry sign at the north-eastern end of this link road.

Cheers :)

That’s great! Thanks for adding it to the map.

I’ve tweaked the nature reserve tagging and added a bit more detail (woods, paths, some fences) from aerial imagery in changeset/178052083.

It might take an hour or two for the view of the map to update.

If any of that isn’t right, or if there’s major stuff which has changed since the aerial imagery was taken, please say and it can be fixed.

In particular, if the reserve isn’t public access 24/7 (e.g. if it’s only open outside school hours or something) then please say and that can be tagged on the map.

I wasn’t sure where the access from Marshaw Road is, so have left it off the map for now.

Thanks :)

Hiya, thanks for adding this. Is this a newly created nature reserve? I’ve not heard of it before (only stuff about planting and conservation in Ryelands Park). Where’s access to it from, is it off Austwick Road or Marshaw Road? Thanks :)