Please can you not tag tertiary roads with the ref tag: doing so causes endless confusion for people using OSM-based satnavs who will never see signage for them. The consensus of the UK community is to use admin_ref for internal highway authority references such as these C-road numbers.

I haven't looked in detail at which roads you have moved to tertiary, but internal HA references are not necessarily a good guide to what fellow mappers may see on the ground. For instance it's inconsistent to have Boyn Hill Road as tertiary and not All Saints Avenue (a consensus held over 16 years that these were just broad residential roads).

Also FOI requests are not necessarily admissable info in OpenStreetMap (they do not imply a copyright waiver).

Regards,

Jerry

I'm reverting these changes, not because they are wrong, but because safely merging the older values of name tags with the changes you made is altogether too complex in a single operation. I don't have time to review all these objects right now, but will endeavour to do so over the next 3-4 days.

Sorry about this, but it's important to consider that OSM data has many uses.

This is the changeset changeset/101266567

Jerry

Hi,

When altering names in the Gaeltacht can you please take care to move any existing ("english") name into "name:en". It is no longer possible to search for things like Great Blasket Island: many folk without good knowledge of the Gaelic will not know it by the current name. So someone interested in looking at places mentioned in something like "20 Years a Growing" will not be able to now.

These changes became apparent from someone using the "english" names for genealogy purposes, when most historical census data uses such names.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi & Welcome to OSM,

Rotheras were already mapped as Rotheras Dowson on the entrance to the building (node/1776844102) and it looks as if this over 3 & 4 Kayes Walk rather than number 2.

I plan to merge your information into the existing object (which we like to do as often the older names are useful for checking data QA).

One other little bit of advice is if opening hours havent changed due to covid just leave the covid opening hours blank. If they have changed do enter the actual hours: "same" will not be picked up apps which read these strings.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

I'd like to second EdLoach here: only use multipolygons when necessary (holes or greater than several hundred nodes). They are very confusing for inexperienced mappers, easy to break (as seen here), and don't save space. Much better to share nodes between ways: particularly as you are using Potlatch as one can follow a way using the "F" key.

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Kirsty,

Then it's completely fine: I should have thought of that as a possibility, although since Brexit I'm not sure how they work. (With another hat on, I'm interested in things botanical, so equally keen that they don't get damaged).

I'll add private to the track on the other side of the fields.

By all means contact me if any other issues arise (SK53 dot osm at gmail ).

Best wishes,

Jerry

Hi & Welcome to OpenStreetMap,

Obviously you are experiencing some problems with people accessing your land. Unfortunately some applications based on OSM assume default access on tracks based on what applies in other countries.

In practice deleting a track may not achieve the desired result: if it is clearly visible someone will add it back at some point. Instead we normally advise people just to set the access to private which apps generally respect (apps from UK-based providers assume this unless some other access is provided).

In your case the track is not obviously visible on current aerial imagery (or at best is hard to distinguish from ploughing tram lines), so I will not restore it. However, if it is well obvious on the ground now, I would advise restoring it & setting access to private (I can do this for you if that is the case).

We local (Nottingham area) mappers are keen that access to tracks & paths in the countryside is accurate on OSM: it helps everyone - walkers, cyclists, farmers & other landowners. Even large logistics companies (notably Amazon) are now adding service roads accessing farms and other isolated houses for deliveries.

Yours,

Jerry aka SK53

Mainly because I'm not familiar with what are usable sources in Oz. We're lucky in the UK because the govt publishes details of all solar farms with power.

The old provisional 1:25k maps shows a spot height of 1092 ft (which translates to 333 m more or less) a little way to the N (about 200 m) https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=54.24600&lon=-3.13551&layers=10&b=7. The same point is marked by a triangle on the earlier 25 inch which if I read the legend properly means a triangulation station (way before trig points of course). Of course that doesn't mean it was the summit, it may have been chosen to have better views to the N & W given the flat nature of the top. Peakbagger gives the Grey Crags top as 1096 ft (and looks to have been properly surveyed too) http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/mountaindetails.php?qu=S&rf=2668. So this indeed answers my original query!

Infuriatingly there is not a spot height for the top of the fell. I was hoping that would settle things.

Yes, looking at even new OS maps the names look as if they need work (Goffa Crag Scar but Goffa Cragg). Probably names have just been perpetuated from earlier mapping. This is known elsewhere, in which case local knowledge such as yours is more valuable. I used to stay at Woodgate long ago, but haven't been in the area since the first wind farms appeared on the hills: I remember driving over from Coniston to have a look at them.

Is this the same cairn (https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3378829)? I'm looking to see if there is an open data source for a spot height.

Perhaps the best way forward would be to add alt_name=Kirby Moor (or swap this with Gray Crags). People using hill guides will be looking for that name, so even if not truly the name of the summit it does reflect some usage).

OSM often picks out these conundrums & they often lead down a rabbit hole of research. (For example I've just discovered that part of these moors jointly belonged to Lowick & Subberthwaite parishes https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10369460/boundary.

I really don't believe this is substantiated as a peak which is why I placed the fixme. Old OS maps mark the cairn as a pile of stones and it is suspiciously close to the parish boundary. I suspect that Grey Crags actually refers to part of the common rather than this bump on the moor (i.e., would be more appropriate as place=locality). I very much doubt if locals were interested in minor topographic elements, but rather named places which were exploited for pasture of mining.

Also I suspect the high point of Lowick High Common is usually referred to as Kirby Moor, e.g., in lists of Marilyns (see also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkby_Moor). I haven't worked out if this is that high point. There don't seem to be OSM elements tagged with either name.

Either way I still think my fixme is relevant, as there are quite a few imponderables.

Jerry

PS. Changeset discussions are much better than direct messages for this sort of things, particularly as others more local than me might have more knowledge.

Your mail to talk-au was pointed out to me & I had a go hunting for Rugby Run & (eventually found it) changeset/99833825#map=15/-22.1365/147.9288. The old homestead is mapped which if I'd found that would have speeded things up.

Do you have on-the-ground knowledge about this footpath way/407387401? The rise in ground & my memory suggest it is unlikely.

Hi & Welcome,

Many thanks for adding this path, it's one I've been meaning to check out for ages (& I imagine in the last year it's got much more use).

I've slightly tweaked it because the path was glued to the edge of the park & the wall of the old nursery (I think the editor automatically glues things which are close together).

Best wishes,

Jerry

Sounds like it, @trigpoint pointed out a few others elsewhere. Thanks for the hint.

Hi Andy,

Just wondered if St Mary's Drive should be residential rather than unclassified. Presumably it was originally the service road driveway for the golf club before the houses were built, or were the houses built at the same time.

Jerry

With respect, Bernard, I have to say this comment is out-of-order, and is an inappropriate way to greet a new mapper.

The firm's privacy policy clearly states that their address is 5-7 Mandeville Place (https://thestudenthousingcompany.com/privacy-policy). Many companies will have their registered office elsewhere (for instance I doubt if anyone from the OSM Foundation visits St John's Innovation Centre in Cambridge), often at their lawyers or accountants office, or at a serviced accommodation address. You cannot make any assumptions about where the business is located from the registered office without further knowledge. Please bear this in mind in the future.

Jerry

This changeset has been reverted by lostmike in c/s #97603780: reason - mapping of fantasy objects/vandalism

Hi,

Many thanks for taking the trouble to correct details in this area.

For permissive paths you can make the details more precise by adding foot=permissive (and bicycle & horse if that is appropriate), rather than just using a label. This information can be directly used by apps. You can just set access=permissive, but this notionally would apply to all viable transport forms so is not recommended.

In general if a path exists on the ground, but is not publicly accessible we general recommend leaving it but changing the access status to private. This is because the path is likely to be added again if it is visible in aerial imagery or someone passing through sees it. The downside is that not every app using OpenStreetMap data respects this information.

For roads, driveways & tracks accessing properties probably the best access choice is destination. A number of delivery firms (notably Amazon Logistics) now use OSM for planning & routing delivery drivers.

I hope this is of some use.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53

PS. I'm intrigued that there is a building marked "Filter House" by New Hall. Does this belong to the water company?