Hi,

There was a very noticeable kink just West of the B6503 bridge over the A6192. It did look like the boundary of two sections of road centred on different base data, so I attempted to smooth the jagged transition into a more realistic arc looking at both the Bing and limited GPS trace data (7 traces, widely spread).
I would prefer not to revert the change set, as it also adds other detail, such as the bridge over the tail bywash of Staveley Town Lock.
If you are able to suggest a Bing imagery offset amount, I can use JOSM to move the road features to it, fairing in at the edges to avoid moving the entire county!

Some of your building outlines seem ~3.5m North, which sadly is about the North offset between Garmin 550 and 660 GPSr running simultaneously on my survey bike so it is hard to tell.

As you suggest, the CCT are making great progress with construction in the area, and hope to map the new bridge over the lock tail in a few months.
http://www.chesterfield-canal-trust.org.uk/index.php/gallery/photos/494-staveley-town-lock

Hi,

Would you mind commenting on the changes you made in this change set please?

Analysis suggests you used Bing imagery to improve the alignment of cycleway NCN1, and add good detail to a number of other tracks and footways around Blyth and Seaton Sluice, but this took time to understand.

Can you consider adding changeset comments to help others improving the map around the country work together better please?
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks,

James

Hi,

Can I ask you to review this edit please?

From my physical survey, this is a narrow permissive footpath including up and down a steep bank with rough wooden steps cut into the hillside.

The Northumberland County Council Public Rights of Way map does not list this way, and local signs show it was a permissive path only.

It was mapped as access=permissive, which this change removes.

Given the gradient, and steps, cycling down it would be extremely dangerous even with a mountain bike, so bicycle=yes seems surprising.

It was mapped against this scheme:
osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Access_Provisions

Can you please review your edit and make appropriate changes?

Thanks,

James

Hi,

Can I ask you to review this edit please?

This is a narrow footbridge carrying a public footpath across a stream. At the East side, there is a barrier to restrict access to foot=yes only (width=0.5 m).

The signs on marker posts, and Northumberland County Council Public Rights of Way map confirm this is a Public Footpath, and it was mapped as foot=designated, following this scheme:
osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Access_Provisions

My physical survey (pictures available), suggests bicycle=yes, horse=yes, and access=yes are wrong. I suggest motor_vehicle=yes is not needed on highway=footway.

Your other related edits in this area seem to have removed other similar tagging. Note most paths here are permissive for walking only.

Can you please review your edit and make appropriate changes?

Thanks,

James