Just wondering if you know anything about the "narrow guage railway" (way/461227090)? I'm suspicious because I can't see anything on the aerial imagery and because railways don't have such sharp bends.

I've updated Kendal bus Station. On most stops; the local_ref should perhaps match the naptan:indicator?

See example at https://bustimes.org/stops/090079360954 which renders `nr` and `opp`. The transport layer in OSM should show you which bus_stops around kendal still have local_ref

I normally edit using JOSM so it hadn't occurred to me that it was a predefined option in the editor. It's probably unnecessary to add the tag, and lots of the roads in the UK don't explicitly specify `oneway=no`. However I don't see there's any harm in doing so, and from selecting a larger area in overpass turbo, it is more common that I thought.

Thanks for all the editing you've been doing round Lancaster. The map is looking much more complete now.

This is not necessarily a fault of yours, but as the last person to edit the bus station I thought I'd comment here.

I'm wondering if the value of the local_ref tag should be the stand number rather than `AT`

local%20ref=*?uselang=en-GB

Is there a particular reason why you've been adding `oneway=no` on quite a few roads? I think the lack of `oneway=yes` can be safely used to assume that two-way traffic is allowed.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wx1

Whilst the stop appears in data on both Traveline (OGL) and Stagecoach (licence unknown) websites; I feel that the physical evidence is suggesting that buses do not stop there. I think it's best if I revert edits in this area

When I used the 555 bus recently, from Kendal to Lancaster, I don't recall the bus pulling into the northbound layby. The AtcoCode for the southbound bus_stop appears in bus route data for a number of different routes.

I think adding `physically_present=no` would be good. I'm unsure about removing the `highway=bus_stop`

osm.wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data#physically_present

I was going to add that when I do the 555 Kendal to Lancaster section. But thanks for adding it

I think `access=customers` might be more appropriate?

thanks for correcting this

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/15879#ticket

`Split bus route 487 into a route_master and two routes`

`Make bus route 41 PTv2 compliant`

Maybe I'm being stupid but once again JOSM has taken the changeset comment from the changeset before this, and not what I typed into the box.

This should say `Make bus route 41A PTv2 compliant`

Changeset comment should say bus route 11

Oops. Looks like a case of operator error. Not really sure what happened because I did type a more relevant comment.

Bus route to ptv2. Somehow that one didn't get uploaded

In which case I'd agree with this edit. Thanks for the good work!

Is landuse=construction really correct for this? I'm aware that there are plans to build on the fields. When I cycled past earlier today they were still just fields. No signs of any construction

I've accidentally duplicated the bus_route relation in this changeset. Fixed in changeset/55560424

I've accidentally duplicated the bus_route relation in this changeset. Fixed in changeset/55560424