Oh excellent, glad they’re helpful. Happy to chat about things if you have any questions or anything :)

oops, the source should reference changeset/177868954, not 177988440.

> I don't see the point in spelling out changes that are already documented

This changeset spans a third of the length of the UK, and will show up in lots of people’s review filters on osmcha.org.

By not spending 10 seconds to write a useful changeset message, you are making those people to all load the changeset and read and understand every change in it in order to review the changeset.

Hiya, what’s the reasoning for this change?

Generally it’s not correct to set the access= tag on a footway, because access= sets the access permissions for *all* vehicle types (motor vehicle, truck, hovercraft, foot, horse, etc.).

If this is a permissive footpath, then all that should be needed to mark it as such is foot=permissive.

bicycle=no and horse=no could be added to make it really clear they’re not allowed on this path (if that’s the case).

Hope that makes sense. Happy to discuss it further if I’ve misunderstood the situation! :)

Hiya, please remember to add a description of your changeset — see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

‘Tags added’ could describe pretty much any changeset ever ;)

Nice work, and thank you for taking the time to align the imagery to Cadastral Parcels first :D

I added the missing kerb nodes in changeset/178306462, because they’re important for accessible routing (wheelchairs). The specific height of kerbs can be surveyed using StreetComplete later.

I’ll get out of your way though, happy mapping!

I’ve surveyed this in person now and the numbering is correct as per this changeset

Agreed, it is a confusing layout and that’s probably caused by historical changes. Thanks for taking another look at it :)

Heya, are you sure this link road is one-way? If so, that would mean the north end of way/42727781 is one-way, but it has a central lane marking and no one-way arrows.

Additionally, I don’t think there’s a no entry sign at the north-eastern end of this link road.

Cheers :)

That’s great! Thanks for adding it to the map.

I’ve tweaked the nature reserve tagging and added a bit more detail (woods, paths, some fences) from aerial imagery in changeset/178052083.

It might take an hour or two for the view of the map to update.

If any of that isn’t right, or if there’s major stuff which has changed since the aerial imagery was taken, please say and it can be fixed.

In particular, if the reserve isn’t public access 24/7 (e.g. if it’s only open outside school hours or something) then please say and that can be tagged on the map.

I wasn’t sure where the access from Marshaw Road is, so have left it off the map for now.

Thanks :)

Hiya, thanks for adding this. Is this a newly created nature reserve? I’ve not heard of it before (only stuff about planting and conservation in Ryelands Park). Where’s access to it from, is it off Austwick Road or Marshaw Road? Thanks :)

You’ve avoided responding to any suggestions that these edits should be done under the automated edits/imports policy, and now you’re asking the local editors to not review your edits and effectively allow you to mark your own homework.

In the meantime, while this discussion has been doing on, you’ve logged another ~17 similar edits in this area. Are you trying to make your set of changes too big to fail?

Your most recent edit (177988990) still has all the same problems:
- Mass-adding address and UPRN details while also changing unrelated things (pipeline URL) which makes it harder to review or revert a changeset without collateral.
- Adding UPRNs to things which I’m not confident the UPRN definitely represents (way/1465345074).
- Mixing geometry and tagging changes.

I’ve reported this to the DWG, because despite the weight of local mappers telling you to stop, I think we need a third opinion. It’s also gone beyond my abilities to revert things.

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your recent improvements around Maryport.

Just a hint — if you press ’Q’ while a building is selected in the editor, its corners will be automatically squared up. This can make drawing regular buildings a lot easier!

Happy editing :)

Cheers!

Was way/1472817871 meant to be industrial=railway landuse=railway? Those tags don’t quite seem to match the rest of the tagging in this changeset.

A lot of the house number and house name data in Ambleside is contributed by tourists, who are here for a limited time, probably distracted and don’t know the area that well, and hence I wouldn’t really trust it to interpolate from.

I don’t think it’s safe to guess at house numbers like that, even if you are using multiple sources to cross-check. While you might be right most of the time, house numbering in the UK can be surprising at times and I think it will end up introducing errors.

This kind of thing is much better left to an on-the-ground survey, and apps like StreetComplete make that really easy. Someone will get to surveying it eventually.

I don’t think you’re fully understanding the impact of reviewing these changes.

There are currently about 25500 individual changes in my area of interest from you, which have not been reviewed yet.

Reviewing your previous edits has so far resulted in tens of follow-up changes, from you, me and other local mappers.

The only way to review those remaining 25500 changes is either to review them one by one (in which case splitting edits up geographically helps with tracking progress, but doesn’t actually reduce the number of things to review; but more on that below); or to revert them en-mass (to remove the need for review; more too on that below).

Having now spent hours going through some of your changes, I am convinced that the automated edits policy (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct#Scope) applies to them:
- You are importing from the UPRN database.
- You have at least a partially scripted workflow; or
- you are manually changing tags without adequate review.

The fact that rskedgell has spent considerable time planning similar imports (osm.wiki/Import_of_UK_postcodes_and_UPRNs_(England_%26_Wales)) suggests the same.

You may say that your workflow can be (and has been) improved as a result of feedback, but that doesn’t deal with the huge pile of currently unreviewed changes, and it still means that any future edits you do will need to be reviewed.

As I’m sure you know, formalising your editing process by following the automated edits policy and publicly planning and documenting the import process ahead of time is designed to remove the need for that one-by-one review of changes, by checking that the process itself is not going to introduce errors into OSM.

That might mean fewer UPRNs get imported as quickly, because the underlying geometry isn’t yet in a state to match well with them, but I think that’s fine. It’s not a race!

So: subject to me being able to work out how to do it without introducing further errors into OSM, I plan to revert the larger of your unreviewed changes in the area. Please don’t make any further edits. Once you’ve documented your import process and got it reviewed (or joined in with rskedgell on their already-in-progress import), it should be straightforward to re-import the UPRNs here.

Sorry about this, I realise you’ve put some time into these edits. But I think this train was set in motion as soon as you started submitting multi-thousand-object changesets without following the imports process.

And the house numbers on Greenbank Road (e.g. way/931037222), where did they come from? A few of them have come from splitting terraces (e.g. way/461754049/history) but unless I’m missing something many of them haven’t?

sigh, I pressed enter too early.

I’ve undone it as changeset/177825330