This basically re-applies the changes to the path from changeset/135904623 after reverting it (in changeset/136122957) to restore the position of the trig point.

The trig point (node/7685964297) had a note saying its position had been calibrated for calculating imagery offsets, so moving it is probably going to break things.

See changeset/135290950 for other recent discussion and a note from the OSM’s Data Working Group (DWG) about this path.

I’ve marked the path as disused:highway=path in changeset/136122727 as suggested, thanks very much for the feedback and suggestion, SomeoneElse.

AWMapper, thanks for the update about works on the ground and plans for signage, that’s good to hear.

I don’t plan to make any further edits/reverts to this path. If the disused: lifecycle prefix gets removed from it again, I’ll leave resolution of that to the DWG.

Thanks all :)

Hi, thanks for spending time working on Keswick.

In future, if you are re-aligning geometry in the UK, can you please do so with reference to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels. The aerial imagery in the UK is not consistently aligned between imagery updates, and is not aligned to ground truth. Before aligning anything, you must adjust the imagery offset so it’s consistent with the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels.

For the centre of Keswick, I think the imagery offset for Bing is currently -2.31,0.

See osm.wiki/Property_extents_in_the_United_Kingdom

Also, please provide more descriptive changeset comments than “edit … features”. *Every* edit in OSM is an edit of features, so saying that conveys no information at all. A more useful comment would be something like “Realign geometry in the centre of Keswick (Bing offset -2.31,0)”.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

A National Trust *employee* who has been working on a large project by them to update path details across their estate has updated it. To the best of my knowledge they are not a “wannabe”. They have made significant, detailed, and correct edits in other areas of the Lake District recently. I do not doubt their credentials.

The path update project (osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths) uses the National Trust’s existing database of path data, which I presume includes information about paths they’ve decided to close or discourage people from using for conservation reasons.

Advertising a path which is closed for conservation reasons is going to encourage people to use it, which is going to impact negatively on the conservation attempts. Presumably, closing a path on access land doesn’t always have to involve a “path closed” sign at the end of it, if the local NT employees judge that the trod isn’t sufficiently obvious to lure people onto it if it’s not on a map.

Why do you keep changing this to re-add the closed footpath?

Heya, thanks for improving the accuracy of Far Costy Clough.

In future you might want to take a few extra moments to preserve the history of the existing mapping, so that its evolution over time can be tracked.

See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Well the edit which marked it as closed due to conservation (changeset/135305975) is by AWMapper, who has been updating footpaths from the National Trust GIS database over the last few weeks, and says they’re a NT staff member on their profile (@AWMapper).

I’ve commented on the original changeset/135290950 to ask about signage for the path closure.

Someone is saying here changeset/135709994#c1025020 that this path doesn’t have any signage on the ground to indicate it’s closed (last week, at least).

Is that something that’s planned? What’s the NT policy on signing or barricading paths which are closed for conservation? Thanks :)

Reverted in changeset/135711366

This footpath has been closed by the National Trust for conservation reasons, which is why it was removed from the map. See changeset changeset/135305975

Hiya, thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!

Please note that you can press the ‘Q’ key in the editor while an area is selected, and it will automatically square the corners of the area. It’s quite helpful for drawing regular buildings (or caravans).

Yeah, the council did a surprisingly good job at planning and communicating the cycle diversion while the riverside path was being redone!

Thanks for the detailed reply! I see your reasoning for thinking it’s a SUP — the signage is not very explicit at all.

The cycle infrastructure here was upgraded a couple of years ago, somewhat temporarily, as a diversion while the riverside path was closed. See https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/news/2020/jun/changes-made-to-cycle-route-diversion. Before then, there was less cycle infrastructure on Caton Road, and the crossing opposite SHC Hire was much simpler (if I remember correctly).

Following the diversion route on
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/28e119001b074dfd80266367e8543a5c shows how it was put in on the east side of Caton Road, and was always designed to cross opposite SHC Hire.

So I don’t think the segment of pavement just south of it was ever designed to be a shared use path.

The crossing at the south end of it only has a picture of a person above its buttons, not a person and a bike. The pavement on the other side of the crossing (around Bridge Square Apartments) is definitely pedestrians only.

So to me the balance of evidence is suggesting that this change should be reverted, but I appreciate it’s not clear on the ground! Thanks very much for the time you’ve put into this (and other edits round Lancaster!). :)

Hi, are you sure about these permissions changes? Last time I looked at that bit of pavement there were rumble strips at its north end, indicating it’s not a cycle path. And at the south end it leads to a pedestrian-only crossing.

Has that changed in the last months?

Heya, thanks for this edit. In future, though, could you please limit edits to a smaller geographical area? This one spans most of the north of England.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for reasons on why this is important.

Thanks!

Hiya, thanks for updating these houses! I just wanted to let you know I’ve made some further edits to the area, so if you spot any mistakes please go ahead and fix them / let me know.

So you’re aware, the aerial imagery in this area is not quite aligned properly, so if you’re going to make further edits here please make sure to set an imagery offset of -1.78,-1.51. You can do that in the ‘Imagery Offset’ settings in the ‘Background’ sidebar on the right. You’ll want to enable ‘OSMUK Cadastral Parcels’ at the same time — this provides the ground truth for working out how to align satellite imagery.

Also, you might be interested in trying the StreetComplete app (https://streetcomplete.app/) for surveying things like house numbers in future. It makes that kind of update a lot easier than doing it in the ID editor!

Have a great day :)

Bing offsets: 0.71,-1.1

(See discussion on changeset/135290950)

(See discussion on changeset/135290950)