Hi,

I agree with your comment on the wiki page regards prow_refs.

Regards LDN/2/10, I've not walked down to that corner (I walked along LWA 51 to the A420) I did see the two paths disappearing in that direction (LWA/72/10 - which I added based on seeing the start and the info in the path order - and LDN/3/10). I've not seen the Golden Valley Road end either and I can't confirm how Lime Brook is crossed. The next time I am down that way I will make an effort to check it out (will likely not be for some time).

Hi DaveF,

Here is a link to relevant path orders: https://www.wickabsonpcgov.uk/?page_id=616

I have added the missing fences. I had omitted them previously as I thought it was getting pretty cluttered (changeset/79011437).

Hi DaveF,

As per the changeset comments, I was literally there.

How often is the SGC/PROW site updated?

Regards,

Mark

Hi Dave, I have updated the problems highlighted, and the relation no longer uses the roads.

Regarding the intent for landuse=farmland, I do not believe this is clear. No conclusion was reached on the tagging mailing list, and the wiki is not explicit.

I believe am using landuse=farmland in a manner that is consistent with the other landuse tags (e.g. landuse=residential).

Thanks for the feedback Dave, I'll sort those out.
Mark

That looks good. I will try and use a similar model. I will adapt this set of changes as I have time to reflect this.

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. My intent was to map the farmland in the area between the A420 and the A431. Rather than create a new area/way by tracing along the outlines of the roads, existing residential landuses etc., I opted to create a multipolygon, re-using existing of ways as required. In some places this required existing land-use ways to be split (and a multipolygon created). I accept this complexity is bad.

Doing this was far more problematic than I anticipated, and required a number of existing land-uses to be converted into multipolygons. This is what's happened at Kelston and Swineford, so that the "farm-side" of the residential land use way could be re-used (as the edge of the farm multipolygon). The picnic area at Swineford (relation/5494099#map=19/51.42139/-2.44548 ) was particularly problematic, but the intent was the same - use the edge of the wood as the limit for the farmland multipolygon. I will revisit it and tidy it up.

As neither of the options I'd identified seemed particularly good for mapping the farm land use (which is undeniably present). I'm open to suggestions, and happy to revert this change and attempt the other option.

The options in my mind were:
-re-use existing ways (seems excessively complex)
-trace a new farmland way along parallel to them (a lot of work to get an outline that's accurate)

On the plus side it seems to render ok :)

Mark