Hi,
Thank you for updating the Western Boundary blockage, but there are some problems with the path across Elmans Green. As a general rule, please, please do not edit by deleting an object and then re-placing the same thing; this results in all the previous history of the object being effectively lost in the database.
You have removed the way tag from the path across Elmans Green and made it into a gate. Please tag it as an appropriate highway and correct the access tags.
Do you have access to the NT tagging guidelines? If you want some help with this, please say.
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi,
You have placed a gate with no access on the junction of Brians Ride and the Western Boundary, effectively closing the Western Boundary to routing engines. From memory, I think the gate is on Brians Ride, close to the main path but not on it.
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi,
You have updated the bridleway across Elmans Green with 'no access'. I assume this was only intended to be for the section through the trees. As it stands you have denied access through a main gate, which was open when I walked there last week. Please correct which sections are closed and which not.
Thanks
Bob Dean

Hi Jasmine,
The informal paths have been deleted. The problem with recognition is who recognises the paths? The paths exist on the ground and are used. Normal practice in OpenStreetMap is to map what is on the ground, not necessarily what some authority wishes to be on the ground.
Regards
Bob

Also:
1. As I read the NT tagging guidelines, I think the service road in Hatfield Forest should be "motor_vehicle=customer" as it is only open to NT members and those who have paid to enter.
2. Do you intend to remove the paths that were closed around 2016/2017, such as the West Ride between Leapers Lane and Beggars Hall?
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi, I walk regularly in Hatfield Forest and I notice that a couple of informal paths near the Flitch Way have been removed from OSM. Was this deliberate? The paths exist and are frequently used.
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi beatpoet,
You changed the unmaintained section of Dane O'Coys Road to a track. What was the rational for this? Herts CC record it as an unmaintained highway, in which case its previous tagging of unclassified and unpaved makes sense. I don't think car=no is correct, but obviously it is only passable by serious off-road vehicles. Also, the history of this section of road starts in 2020 and I'm sure that it was mapped many years ago, do you know what tags it had before 2020?
Finally, you always use the same changeset comment on every changeset, which conveys no more information than an empty comment. It would be really useful to other mappers if you would give some indication of what changes have been made in the changeset.
Thanks
Bob Dean

Ok thanks. According to the current owner, the building was re-developed by the owner of the Highland Park distillery, but has been through several incarnations since, including being a care home, but still retains the name of Highland Park House.
Cheers
Bob

Hi,

You have updated Highland Park House with the name Rosebank. What is the rationale for this? Rosebank is the name of the service road entering the property, the house is still Highland Park House. (I'm staying there at the moment.)
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi, I walked the path to the bridge and it is still tilted. I spoke to a local who said it has been tilted for at least nine years that she knew. Judging by the wear on the path, the bridge is still heavily used and I suspect is not unsafe, but needs to be used with caution especially when wet. I would like to set the tag back to foot=yes and add a warning about using the bridge with caution, but I don't know a sensible way of tagging this. Did you raise an issue with Essex CC on this? There is nothing showing on their tracking page <https://www.essexhighways.org/track-it>. If not, I will raise it and see what they say.
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi beatpoet,
You appear to have changed the alignment of the path between Westfield Road and Grailands. I have walked this path in the past and it runs between the school boundary fence and a hedge, it doesn't cross into the school field and is not visible on aerial imagery, being hidden by the hedge. I think the original alignment of this path was correct. Might you have been confused by the path on the school field that is visible in the aerial imagery?
Regards
Bob Dean

If the Stortford report is of interest, you can find it buried as Appendix 3 in <https://www.bishopsstortfordtc.gov.uk/document_library/Agendas%20and%20Minutes%20-%20Localism%20and%20Strategy%20Committee%202018/LS180305%20Agenda%20Attachments%20and%20Minutes%2005%20Mar%2018/LS180305%20Agenda%20and%20Attachments%2005%20Mar%2018.pdf> starting at page 15. It's 100+ pages long.
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi,

Thanks, I'll make it look like a footpath.
I'm sorry about the tone of my previous message, I must stop typing messages into the small box where I can't see what I've written.
I don't know if you saw the report that SUSTRANS prepared for the Stortford Town Council on cycling and walking. It had some really good ideas for improving cycling routes through the town, but I suspect that not much will happen because they all cost money.
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi,
You seem to have tagged FP21 from its junction with Tailors down to St James Way as bicycle=designated on the basis of the East Herts planning options document. The only place in that document that I can find that looks like FP21 is on map 3M. Map 3M has multiple errors including showing bridleway BR82 as a footpath and showing footpath FP21 as cycle + pedestrian, which contradicts the Herts RoW map. The signposts at both ends of this section of FP21 both indicate that this is a Public Footpath and I can find no evidence on the ground that there is any cycle rights. I therefore think that this should be tagged as a footpath with bicycle=no. Do you have any verifiable (and legally usable) evidence that it is accessible on bicycles?
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi, The permissive path that was closed and you deleted in this changeset was closed for tree felling work. The planning permission for the tree felling requires replanting of trees during this winter and it is not clear at present whether the path will be re-opened. It has, I am told, been a permissive path for many years although I live nearby but have not used it very much. I see that you have re-instated the path in a later changeset, for which thanks. If you delete an object and then re-instate it as new object, the history disappears and can be difficult to find, so I think its a good idea to wait until we have good information that closure is permanent before deleting objects.
Regards
Bob Dean

Hi,
As the landowner giveth, the landowner can taketh away, so I think it should be bicycle=permissive, but only for the sections in Birchanger Wood, it should not extend to the section of path out to Birchanger village.
Regards
Bob

Hi,
I noticed that you have changed the access on the footpath at Birchanger Woods that crosses the A120 to bicycle=yes. This path is a designated public footpath, why do you think that bicycle usage is permitted?
Regards
Bob Dean

Hello beatpoet, welcome to openstreetmap.
You added way/794534119 (the path from Bishop's Stortford footpath 17 to Hadham Road). I think this path should be tagged as permissive as there are signs at each end of the path explicitly saying that it is not a public area nor a public right of way, and that use of the land is by permission of the council and may be withdrawn at any time. The area is also due for redevelopment soon-ish:-(
Regards, Bob Dean