Yup, I think that’s all OK. Seems to fit in with the tagging guidelines: osm.wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_bridleways

(Note: This changeset only changed the designation of the existing mapped path. Having been here myself many times, the path definitely exists on the ground, and existed in OSM prior to this edit.)

Are you copying data from an OS walking map? For tedious licensing reasons, that’s not allowed (see osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for the list of OS data we *are* allowed to use in OpenStreetMap). If you copy data from OS walking maps, you risk all your edits being reverted in order to keep OSM’s licensing correct.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65030319

As far as I’m aware, foot/bicycle/horse=designated implies access=yes, but also means that that’s the intended user of the track. Why change this, out of interest?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65030650

A suggestion: it’s hard for others to piece together the overall picture of your edits (for review) if it’s split into a lot of tiny edits. Would you mind combining all your related edits into single changesets? For example, one changeset to fix up all the bridleways/tracks/MTB routes around Grizedale. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65019765

Should this have designation=bridleway, if it’s signed as such?
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65016794

Thanks for your edit! I’ve added a bit more information from your website to the map in this edit: changeset/65003777. Would you mind checking it over and correcting anything I’ve got wrong? Thanks.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64987874

(The tags were removed because they’re present on the buildings themselves.)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64973416

Note that if you press ‘s’ when a building is selected in the ID editor, it will automatically square up the corners of the building for you.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64972543

Is Flat 4 a public building, or a private flat? If it’s private, I suggest that adding it might be a little too much detail for OSM, and it might be more generally useful to just tag the entrances, building height, and the flat numbers for each entrance: addr:flats=*. :-)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64955537

I fixed it as changeset/64874224. There was actually already a tag for the high point a few nodes to the east!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64864974

Thanks for your contribution. This would slightly better be tagged as a mountain pass, rather than a peak. natural=peak is meant to be used in the context of the summit of a hill. See mountain_pass=*. I’ll fix this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64864974

Maybe it could benefit from an alt_name=Dalton-in-Furness tag, to prevent this happening again?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64867497

Oops, thanks.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64869516

Sure. Done in changeset/64828055.

I changed it in changeset/64739312 :-)
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64730685

It would be better to tag this with a disused: lifecycle prefix (disused=*:), i.e. disused:amenity=atm. Then the map retains some information about the fact that this used to be an ATM (and presumably the ATM is still there, just turned off or something?)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64730685

Can you use `note` or `fixme` keys instead of `description` or `name=mine shafts?`? The latter two are meant for end users of the map, not mappers. description=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64613269

Nice!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64544611

I drove round it this morning (Mapillary images are currently pending approval). I can’t see any ‘private’ restrictions — just looks like a normal (fancy) estate road to me, so I’ve retagged it as a non-private, residential road (changeset/64560623). I’ll update the area in more detail once the Mapillary images are approved and I can actually look at them again.

I think the cycle path actually extends further up Quernmore Road to the west than I had it from the blog posts, so I’ll fix that at the same time.