hi there, thanks for trying to tidy up the paths around Machynlleth!

I've merged the way here as its duplicated with the track which has the relevant PRoW tags on it already. way/1468995135

In general OSM tries to map what is on the ground so its preferable if a PRoW deviates a bit from the official designated line set by the council or maps. If it deviates a lot then this can be reflected in the tags.

Another thing to note is that just because something is designated as a public footpath it doesn't necessarily mean that cycling or equestrian is not allowed, its up to whoever owns the land. Natural Resources Wales often permit cycle tracks etc in their woods.

Cheers

Thanks for the replies!

On reflection its mainly the addition of the postfixes that are giving me "this dataset should not be the name tag" vibes, especially with the "Pole Transformers" everywhere.

Looking at the "Open Infrastructure Map" project I'm getting the sense this is a case of mapping for render.

I appreciate could do with wider discussion so I'll hold fire changing the names already mapped.

Another thing I've noticed is that "Substation" or "Transformer" is prepended to most (all?) of the the nodes you've added - is this from the NG data source?

I have verified that some substations don't have this as part of their name
e.g. node/9974532958 is labelled as "Shelton Flds." [Sic] Adding "Substation" here would be descriptive and redundant thanks to the tags.

Sorry to be a bore, to be clear I generally think this information is useful, I'm just a bit cautious about imported datasets.

I had a look at a couple of pole transformers on my walk today and couldn't see anything visible on the grey box apart from a ref on the pole.

From the wiki:
"Do not use name=* if:
The feature is unnamed in the real world"

If its hit and miss perhaps "ref_name" would be more appropriate for the pole transformers?

Hi, could you please explain why?

My understanding is that these are descriptions given by National Grid and rarely (if ever) used in the real world. official_name gives this context.

Just to hopefully clear up a couple of things:

Motor vehicle access is implied "no" on footpaths (it should actually highlight this in the iD editor!). It is still good practice to be explicit, especially for pavements in the UK so this work isn't wasted.

To decide access routing software should look at the "access" tag then the individual foot/bicycle/motor tags.
---
I've removed the access=no tag on a couple of ways that aren't pavements as could still legally be accessible to cyclists. e.g. way/943374864

I've also updated the tags to use the more standard highway=footpath ones.

PS great work mapping the pavements btw!

Thanks, my bad.

Hi, thanks for the additions.

I'm removing the separate cycle way as cycle lanes part of the main highway are tagged using the "cycleway=lane" tags which already exist. highway=cycleway is typically used just segregated cycle paths.

Hi again, hope you had a good solstice.

I appreciate this was a while ago but do you have a source for the tag "ref=SW (2)" used for the Shropshire Way?
This change set appears to be the source of it.

Just an FYI there is a note with some interesting discussion about the tags used for the drovers pen, hopefully you can help clarify note/4356262