I’ve undone it as

Where did the house numbers for some of the houses on Kirkfield Rise come from? e.g. way/423109955

Why change way/423109954 and way/423109955 from a more specific building type to building=residential?

Wonderful, it’s great to see some more attention being paid to the map around Horton :D

Nice work! Thanks for these changes.

If you’re going to be making more changes to farmland tagging, consider taking a look at osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse, which is a writeup of the consensus tagging from a few of us for farmland and meadows in the north west.

In the case of this changeset, I think it would mean tagging the fields as meadow=pasture as well as landuse=meadow, as from memory all the land around Horton is improved or upland sheep grazing.

Hope that makes sense, happy to discuss further if you have thoughts on it. Happy editing :)

I’ve now checked and fixed everything in Heysham and north up to The Battery in Morecambe.

Well spotted! Sorry I missed that one. There’s still a lot to review and clean up :(

Whoops, sorry I missed that one when cleaning up some of the UPRN mess.

I’ve reverted this as changeset/177651865, as we don’t know exactly what the UPRN represents.

From a couple of minutes of reviewing this (I am nowhere near finished, nor do I really want to waste any more of my time on this):

1. way/1228810819 and way/1228810820 have a suspicious addr:street

2. Same for way/1191358663 and various other buildings around there

3. UPRN for way/171150926 should probably be on the surrounding site

4. 4 UPRNs for way/83934347 looks like it needs more investigation

5. Similarly for way/158856135

6. Buildings like way/1158031835 should be addr:city=Backbarrow not addr:city=Ulverston, to match the rest of the buildings in the village. (Or if you’re going to insist on using postal towns in addr:city, then addr:suburb needs to be set as well)

‘Lathe’ (or ‘laithe’) means a field barn, so you can probably safely retag buildings like this as building=barn.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/laithe

Another 10 minutes of checking and I’ve found some more problems (and fixed a couple of them):

1. way/665353951 had the wrong addr:street added, and a potentially incorrect postcode too. The postcode matches the street, and it matches the UPRN, but the chapel is definitely not on that street. I’ve fixed addr:street and removed addr:postcode for it in changeset/177586361

2. way/1075996208 is a bus stop but you’ve added an address to it. Bus stops can’t receive post, so I don’t think this is correct. I believe the postal_code tag is for this instead? (e.g. as used here way/162989911)

3. Same here: way/1075996234

4. UPRN added to the school building rather than the surrounding area (which is where the main address tagging is) at way/368739303

5. Address added to a slurry tank at way/922614550 — this is probably a case for postal_code too?

6. Wrong addr:street added to way/583271805. This house doesn’t have an addr:street as far as I know.

7. Same for way/583014950

8. Address details added to a substation at way/558600627, but substations can’t receive post, so I think this is another job for postal_code.

9. I’m not sure that way/525923986 is actually on Towneley Close, but would need to survey it to be sure.

10. Address and UPRN details for Booths (way/430176527) probably belong on the surrounding shop area.

11. Why does way/486427547 have two UPRNs? From Bing Streetside imagery it looks like there might be a cellar flat which hasn’t been mapped yet, but it would need a survey to confirm.

Grand :) Thanks for all your work on the map!

Thank you for fixing the canal/bridge issues.

I think if it’s not clear which of several UPRNs relates to a site or individual buildings on the site, then we shouldn’t be adding those UPRNs to OSM without finding another source of information which can clarify what each UPRN relates to.

I’ve yet to find time to review the rest of the changes in this changeset, so might have further queries later.

Yeah, the imagery isn’t super clear, but it is indeed a terrace with steps in height as the hill slopes down to the west.

As per the message I just sent you, this is why I think geometry changes should be kept separate from UPRN additions. There’s so much more to check with them to get them right, if you don’t have local knowledge.

Could you please pause and respond to the comments on your previous changesets before continuing to make the same huge sets of changes across the North West?

Adding UPRNs is undoubtedly good, but people need to be able to verify your work to trust it. Mixing 8000 changes of different types all together in a single changeset, with no information about the method you used to generate the changes (it has to be at least partially automated, right?), makes this very hard.

Are you sure it’s the petrol station roof which has the UPRN, and not something else? It seems a bit weird for a roof to have a UPRN.

This one? way/1264021493

Interesting example. It had me confused for a few minutes, until I enabled the Bing Streetside photo overlay (in ‘Map Data’ on the right in ID). This is like Google Streetview, but the license is compatible so we’re allowed to use it as a source for OSM. It’s not available on every road, but when it is available it’s very useful.

It shows that the bit of the ‘L’ which is on the wrong side of the Cadastral Parcel line is actually the garage for the right-hand semi of way/1264021492. It looks like it’s part of the next house down the road due to parallax error, but it’s actually a separate building.

Does that fit with your understanding of it?

Generally I treat the Cadastral Parcels as accurate. There have been a few instances where they don’t match the aerial imagery or my local knowledge, but in most cases where the Cadastral Parcels seem to diverge from aerial imagery, it’s the Cadastral Parcels which are right and they’re indicating something more complex is happening than what I’d first assumed.

Overall, though, I raised this in the hope of eliminating systematic error from misaligned aerial imagery when adding lots of geometry. We’re never going to make the map 100% perfect, and any errors with individual houses can always be fixed in future when someone with more information notices them.

Just in case it wasn’t clear, the Cadastral Parcels layer shows the property extents (i.e. land parcels from the Land Registry), not the building outlines. I think you figured this, but I wanted to double check!

The land parcels typically rarely change, although they can change, and they can also not line up perfectly with the aerial imagery everywhere, either where there’s an error in the Land Registry data, or someone has sold or annexed some land.

If you could link me to a specific building you’d like to query I can try and explain using that as an example, if that would help?

Heya, thanks for the additions to Lancaster, although mixing up UPRN addition, geometry changes and changes of other tags into one changeset makes it quite hard for others to review.

There are a few things I have questions about, hopefully they’re straightforward oversights!

1. Why remove addr:street from way/641817940?

2. There are several UPRNs which have been changed from those done in a recent import by rskedgell, e.g. way/563111800. Was that intentional? I haven’t looked to see which is correct.

3. As in your other changeset on Lancaster, you’ve added a UPRN to an area of the canal, way/845717554. Are you sure that’s right?

4. What Cadastral Parcels offset from the aerial imagery did you use? I assume it will have varied significantly across the city.

Ta

I came here to say the same thing! It seems odd to me that the canal would have a UPRN (and then several different ones in different places).