Super, thanks for checking and updating it :)

Indeed, I see you have created two multipolygons: one for the lower pastures, and one for the upper (rough) ones.

Scanning quickly through your edits here, though, I see at least these two fields which were tagged differently and which are no longer represented: changeset/185152204

More generally, I believe fields should always be mapped individually (either as an area or a multipolygon; personally I prefer the former because multipolygons are far too easy for people to break) because their use may change over time. In that eventuality, only the tagging has to be changed, rather than the more time consuming and error prone geometry.

This edit (185150976) also lost detail of the wall curves along the east side of the road (particularly just north of Braida Garth’s drive), all the gate nodes, and the farmyard area is missing a multipolygon type so isn’t rendered. There may be other problems I haven’t spotted yet.

I realise you set out to fix the OSM Inspector error for the moorland here (which I hadn’t spotted, good to know about), but completely reworking the valley to switch it to multipolygons can’t be a good use of anyone’s time. It’s bound to introduce additional errors like these.

It stings a bit in particular because I recently spent 10+ hours adding detail to Kingsdale, and I feel like what’s been done here has undone that (and removed the history of it, by deleting the areas). I realise you have probably spent quite a while on your edits too, though, in good faith.

I’m tempted to revert all the edits here and do a more focused fix myself on the OSM Inspector error on the moorland. It looks like that error is focused on Kingsdale Head, and the landuse could do with some more detail there anyway since their recent rewilding/planting projects. What would your thoughts be about that approach?

Hi, thanks for updating the tagging on these. Just a note — some of them still have farmland=pasture tagging which is outdated and should be replaced with meadow=pasture. I noticed two fields in the NE of this edit, but have not checked them all.

If you could update your editing script/practices to catch those tags (like crop=grass) and update them too, that would be helpful.

Heya, did you mean to tag this as a garage? It looks a lot like a house.

Why? These are separate fields, and they were each tagged differently. Why have you coalesced them all to a single area?

Can I ask why? Was something broken before? :)

Hiya, are you sure about this? The Public Rights of Way overlay in ID (which is derived from the council’s definitive map) says this particular stretch is a public footpath, not a bridleway. The bridleway descends to Bowderdale.

Thanks for fixing this! The duplicates were an accident (potentially caused by a bad network connection) and the original editor was wondering how to go about deleting them.

See discussion in changeset/184930685

Was deleting the duplicates straightforward to do in JOSM?

Looks like someone else has used JOSM to delete the duplicates in changeset/185075834

Hi, there was no geometry missing here and the road layout was correct. We do not map motorway on/off ramp lanes separately unless they are physically separated, and these ones are not (only separated by paint).

I have reverted this as changeset/184930254

Please check the wiki and editing guidelines, or talk to local editors, before making incorrect changes like this. Thank you

Oh I see, thank you for changing it back.

Do you know if the campsite is still in business?

Hiya, the website you’ve changed this to says it’s no longer available. Is that what you intended to do?

Hi, the road under construction was already mapped here. You should have changed its tagging to indicate that construction was complete, rather than drawing a new road over the top and leaving the construction line in place. That would have kept the contribution history and avoided duplicating the road.

Please take more care in your edits.

I have fixed this in changeset/184865842

OK, done in changeset/184688378

What about something like natural=bay? Not saying that tag specifically, but perhaps there’s a generic name for this kind of water flow pattern which we could use in a natural=* tag and name it that way?

Another thought which popped to mind was to add an extra branch of the river way, and name that. That would indicate a bit more that the name refers to the flow pattern.

In fact, the waterway=rapids tags may be quite appropriate here. I’ll go ahead and change to that. Let me know what you think (we can always revert my edit if you disagree).

Thanks for tweaking the tagging, and thanks again for your updates in the area. It’s looking more detailed now!

Should way/1531887643 be called Denham Wheel, or should Denham Wheel be a locality?

https://redrosecollections.lancashire.gov.uk/view-item?key=SXsiUCI6eyJ2YWx1ZSI6InJpdmVycyBpbiBzcGF0ZSIsIm9wZXJhdG9yIjoxLCJmdXp6eVByZWZpeExlbmd0aCI6MywiZnV6enlNaW5TaW1pbGFyaXR5IjowLjUsIm1heFN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIjo1LCJhbHdheXNTdWdnZXN0IjpmYWxzZSwiaW5kZXgiOjF9fQ&WINID=1782297105959#DpOmo3-vb3gAAAGd6JmMxA/268322 suggests that the Wheel is a particular current/water pattern in this area of the river in high water, so I’m not sure if it applies to the whole river area. Tricky one, I’m not sure what the best tagging is.

OK, all the restrictions added in changeset/184516692.

You can visualise the restriction zone here: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2sc7 (using a query from https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-replace-uk-occurrences-of-maxweight-hgv-with-maxweightrating-hgv/135024/12)

Let me know if anything doesn’t look right!

aha, I’ve managed to find some more on Bing Streetside imagery, which I think is enough to properly define a HGV restricted area in this part of Heysham.

I’ve added the signs in changeset/184516371 and will go ahead and add the restrictions to the roads now.

Ah, excellent, that’s very useful. I’ve added the rest of the restriction in changeset/184515550, let me know if anything there doesn’t look right (or just go ahead and fix it :)

I guess there’s still potentially some signage on Barrows Lane (or elsewhere north of Smithy Lane) which I don’t know about which would extend the limit north along Barrows Lane. Do you know of any? Cheers :)