Hi Thomas,

I was a bit confused by the added roads at the Bowes Bypass Interchange. There was no evidence of these being in construction (July 2024). Shouldn't 'proposed' rather than 'construction' be used? Really we should only map what is on ground.

I can't quite reconcile the changeset comment and the history. I don't think that I changed the access to private; I was only passing the road end, and I don't think there is anything unusual going on.

Hi,

I was mapping in the Ulverston area and noticed several examples of barrier=wire_fence which you had added. Would you consider retagging with barrier=fence, fence_type=wire? They will then get rendered.

I was reluctant to do a mass edit of other people's work.

The fact that the operator calls it a halt? It's a common pattern on preserved railways to distinguish between "full service" stations catering to tourists (i.e. with a car park) and "only a halt" where the only expected customers are walkers.
Linley and Kirkhaugh are designated halts by the South Tynedale, Kingfisher by the Weardale.

But frankly, the definition of a halt is beside the point. My irritation is with overriding the work done by local mappers based on individual opinion. It doesn't sit well with a collaborative project.

Yes, the stops at Kirkhaugh and Linley Halt are very specifically identified as halts by the South Tynedale Railway. It is a useful and used distinction on this railway.

Indeed it would. I think this was quite early tagging and I had misunderstood the access tagging. Fixed!

Must have been a bodged attempt to fix board_type tagging. But that's irrelevant if the board has gone (just posts IIRC). Fixed.

Note: River outlines from OS OpenData VectorMap

Yes, because a landuse isn't needed and is visually confusing for a house set in a garden. The landuse drawn didn't match with cadastral parcels and overlapped with a commercial landuse (the plant centre).

Perhaps add landuse=commercial if the area of the garden centre can be delimited?

Oops! I thought hill=peak was definitely a mistake (as opposed to a likely mistake / poor tagging).

Changeset reverted.

It's difficult for data consumers if there are two primary tags. One is going to trump the other. But in retrospect that was perhaps a bit rash, since it might not be obvious which is the primary function: information office with some nick nacks or gift show with some information. If need both, they could be on different nodes.

Thanks! It did look like the car park had been rebuilt. Removed the fixme and tagged the "flagpole" in adjacent car park as razed: too.

Presumably there is no longer a phone here? Retag amenity = telephone with removed:amenity = telephone
?

I'm pretty confident that this is a sewer vent and not a "domestic" vent inside the cadastral parcel of a property. It has the same substantial and decorative ironwork as other sewer pipes in Durham, and is distinct from "domestic" vents. I'm guessing that it vents a small sewer running along the service alley.

Merged into Black Bull with
food=yes

Indeed it should. Fixed.

Thanks for resolving the note I added about routes from Cnicht down to Llyn Cwm-y-foel. Perhaps you could add something like trail_visibility = bad for the section that's hard to follow? The standard rendered doesn't show this, but more specialist walking renders can.

It certainly should, but there's conflicting information about whether it follows the PRoW away from the river. There's a note asking for a local survey of the signage (we were following the S bank).

Perhaps this is a StreetComplete oddity, but the added tagging around the Northlands roundabout looks odd e.g. on Park Road North:
cycleway:both = separate
oneway = yes
oneway:bicycle = no

The oneway road now appears to have a contra-flow bicycle lane, which is surely not correct?

The original cycleway = separate
tagging seems simpler and better, since it is more clearly saying "don't look here for cycle information!"

Paul H.

Isn't it confusing to separate the building and the business but give both the name of the business e.g. American Nails? You could leave the building unnamed (or give its address), but unless you need to distinguish the two, isn't it simpler to have one object for both business and business?