agggh, accidentally started on St Michaels near St Fagans (not completely used again to PL3's changeset cf iD)

The post office (which may well be closed) which you mapped in Penrhiwceiber seems to be on the wrong side of the road.

Hi,

I've reverted these edits as they lack plausibility & appear to be just playing around with the edit functionality.

Jerry aka SK53

That looks good enough!

@matt_twam_asi: do you have a link to the PRoW modification order? West Sussex website is not particularly forthcoming. I also found this regarding the section across the old station http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/cttee/row/row230209i7.pdf

NCN 223 implicitly means bicycle=yes or bicycle=permissive, but some routers may not use this information and may need it on the ways. Leave it for a bit, I'm asking other experienced mappers about this. The issue is that fixing it here doesn't fix it for any other bridleway.

The access is a bit complex here, S of the railway it appears to be legally a public footpath, and the bit through the old station isn't even on the West Sussex Rights of Way map (see Map the Paths which helps find rights of way missing from OSM https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.05093034480947&lon=-0.36507251053827583&zoom=4&mode=0).

Hi mygrove,

Please dont fiddle with access tags to fix a routing problem with an app. Often apps will be using older data, or may just have bugs in the consumption of OSM tags (highway=bridleway is a common one, particularly if the app is written by developers elsewhere).

A quick check on the RideWith GPS website suggests that ways tagged with highway=bridleway with no specific bicycle access set are ignored. Graphhopper also seem to have this myopic view of bridleways. A UK-based cycle router such as cycle.travel does not.

The correct action would be to ask RideWithGPS to fix this bug in their access rules. I've sent such a comment through to them via their website.

When you change the access you can affect 10s of apps many of which may have been working perfectly. The app you are using may not update for another month or so, so you wont even see if you have fixed an issue or not. In particular it is now impossible to do any diagnosis of your original problem, because you have potentially affected routing for everyone (as well as caused the way to be virtually invisible on the main map). I have therefore reverted your changes so that we can really work out what the problem might be (which is probably adding bicycle=designated to the ways).

Sorry to be a bit shirty, but I seem to have spent an hour on this & I'm a bit disgruntled!

Yours,

Jerry aka SK53

Actually I checked further on Robert Whittaker's site and he has an additional page on PRoW data for each authority. He gives Leeds a green tick https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/. So it might be worth asking him to add Leeds to his progress page &, as you suggest, pinging, Nick Whitlegg too.

Rowmaps has footpaths, bridleways etc as separate geojson files which can be pulled into the iD editor as a vector layer. I'm just going to try to see if it can cope with the footpaths file.

Hi dan000,

I think you need the access tags and opening_hours is much less likely to be consumed. Currently Graphhopper routes through for cycles, cars & pedestrians, but OSRM does not. You probably also need to see how old the Kurviger data is (many routers can take a month or so to update with new data).

Jerry aka SK53

(brought here via Help @OSM)

Hi James,

At the moment the Leeds data does not look to be available in a form which is usable. There is a tool for comparing rights of way mapped in OSM with data we can use here: https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress. However, it is available on Leeds Data Mill under OGL https://datamillnorth.org/dataset/leeds-public-rights-of-way.

Robert (rjw62), who maintains it, has great expertise in winkling data (& suitable licences) out of councils, but it takes a great deal of time. It might be worth asking him about the current status (Nottingham also publish PRoW data in this way but I recall there was an issue regarding the license).

One of the interesting things about the Leeds data is that they also provide information on path furniture (stiles, gates etc).

It's also worth noting that until one has walked the line the state of the path might not be clear. I had to file 3-4 issues when I mapped 3 footpaths near Harewood two years ago.

Jerry

Can't believe I just linked to this & you'd checked it's still there! Think I checked 2 years ago, but didn't add a check date.

@eteb: basic multipolygons should be as convenient as drawing the ways selecting each of them and pressing "c". Not sure if you are doing something different.

It gets much more complicated if you cut an existing area as iD converts that to a multipolygon, so generally I avoid it & do things which require it in another editor.

@NatassiaKalesnikava: you can see in this Mapillary image (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.833066299998&lng=-0.14354730000229&z=17&pKey=300885708284675&focus=photo&x=0.4193246674038212&y=0.5312878292066915&zoom=3) that @Thomas Jarvis is correct, only signed with a "No RIght Turn". In this case the restriction has the same effect as a straight-ahead only, but we map what is on the ground.

Hi,

I notice that you mention Google Maps. Please do not look at google maps to add more detail (or to resolve things which cannot be resolved using on-site survey or aerial imagery). It is expressly against both Google's Terms & Conditions & the OSM Contributor terms. Creating data in this way could create unforeseen legal issues (with potentially ruinous costs) for the OSM Foundation.

It can be a bit annoying knowing that one could resolve something, but in practice we get new & better sources of imagery and other data pretty regularly. One just needs a bit of patience to then revisit places and refine the mapping.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53

Hi Gregor,

Thanks for your edit. I appreciate that you may have had some inconsiderate people assuming that they could access these roads. However removing private roads is not anything like as beneficial as changing the access to private. It is quite likely someone will be along in a little while, spot that roads are missing & add them again. I will therefore restore these roads but with a more appropriate classification and all access private. This should end up having the same effect as that which you intended.

I must confess a bit of guilt that we hadn't spotted these, all local mappers should know that the & Thoresby Estate & this area in general is private and they certainly should never have been marked as public roads.

I suspect the issues you have had are because the data is routeable, because the same info is available on other maps including official ones. Please note that these were actually sourced (with appropriate permissions) from Ordnance Survey data so all these roads will be shown on official maps too. The actual Ordnance Survey data also looks wrong (you can see it herehttps://os.openstreetmap.org/#zoom=16&lat=53.22922&lon=-1.03641 ). Roads shown in grey without borders are usually private or restricted access, roads in white are usually public roads. The OS mapping S of the lake looks very inconsistent. It may be worth reporting to them too.

OpenStreetMap is no different in that "the presence of a road, path or track is no indication of a right of way". There are many uses of OSM data which may need this information to be present (the range of actual users of OSM ranges from ramblers through to Amazon Logistics & some blue light services).

One last point, if any properties along these roads get deliveries from Amazon & a number of other logistics companies, it may be better to set the main access route as access=destination rather than private. Similar things apply to the church & the study centre marked on the map (if still open). I'm more than happy to make such updates if you advise me what is most appropriate, but for now they are all marked private. I've also made similar changes to a number of other estate roads in the neighbourhood which also looked similarly incorrectly mapped.

Yours,

Jerry aka SK53

I think the same is true of the one in Vic Centre (some press coverage in Nottingham Evening Post).

Sounds an interesting project. I've updated the Dunelm node too (was just passing through Coalville after a visit to woods around Coventry had been rained off, so it was what we call drive-by mapping").

When adding that I noticed the obvious cinema building just to the S of Marlborough Square & based name on recent Food Hygine data.

J

Worth noting that in some places road signs will have a full postcode (providing the road is short enough to only have one). Quite common in Nottinghamshire, and perhaps elsewhere.

Hi Jim,

I'm an occasional Geographer myself & have even added a few in this area, such as: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4651030.

In Ireland OSM is the base map used, but there are two dedicated contributors in Northern Ireland - Kenny Allen & Albert Bridge - I've been indebted to their photos (& particularly the descriptions) in helping resolve map details on OSM

Unfortunately the area around Coalville, Ibstock & Swadlincote is not mapped in as much detail as some other parts of the East Midlands

Jerry

Hi Jim,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. It's great to have someone updating a new build estate with local knowledge.

I just thought it worthwhile to say that you can change the status of a road marked as "under construction" by clicking where it says "highway feature" and selecting an alternative such as residential road. Also you can cut a single road (right click menu) and keep part as construction & as houses are occupied the other part residential.

We know that delivery companies make a great deal of use of OSM (Amazon Logistics are significant contributors), so there are definitely advantages getting the information into OSM.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53