The erroneous armchair mapping was also in changeset/177558392.

No problem, you’ve got up to speed fast!

I’ve just submitted a few more tweaks to what you’ve done today, but nothing major.

One thing to note is that driveways for houses should be tagged as access=private as they’re not part of the public road network.

Aside from that I mostly tidied up a few bits of geometry and added roof tags (which most people don’t bother with; don’t feel you have to; they’re useful for 3D rendering of the map, or for data collection about housing types).

Thanks for fixing the Caton FC details :)

Heya, areas like way/1489465296 look like meadow, rather than cropland, so should probably be tagged as landuse=meadow meadow=pasture (you can see animals grazing on this area in aerial imagery).

See osm.wiki/User:Gurglypipe/landuse for an overview of the consensus several local mappers have on how to tag different types of farmland in the north west. :)

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your additions to Caton. It’s nice to see some of the housing gaps here being filled in.

You’ll have noticed I made some changes after your first edit — thanks for picking up on that and learning from it. Happy to answer any questions if you have any.

One question from me — why did you change the Facebook page of Caton FC (way/1322379870) from https://www.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=61556191269660 to [email protected]? As far as I can see, the Facebook page is still active.

Cheers

Indeed, the OSM editor does suggest changing the tags — but it’s only a suggestion. If the tag change could always be applied with certainty then it would have been applied automatically without you having to approve it. Please do check such suggestions in future and only apply them if you’re sure they’re correct (they typically are correct though). It’s fine to leave them if you’re unsure.

I’ve removed the public_transport=platform tags in changeset/179962736

Thanks for the rest of your updates here! :)

Hiya, thanks for adding some detail to Cinderbarrow!

Are you sure that things like way/549563143 should be tagged as public_transport=platform? They are a railway platform (railway=platform), but Cinderbarrow isn’t really *public* transport, so I’m not sure that tagging is appropriate? :)

Nice to see some more of the meadows being mapped, nice work :)

In fact, the roads near Coanwood were previously changed to highway=tertiary (changeset/100556040) and then those changes were reverted as invalid (changeset/100556298).

Hi, I’d really like to know what basis you’re changing these road classifications on, as it doesn’t seem to align with the consensus on the wiki.

osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom
highway=unclassified
highway=tertiary

Spot-checking some of the changes here:
- way/108118886 is a back road between Nenthall and Nenthead and has passing places. The main road (A689) connects the two places more directly.
- way/154856542 is more likely a residential street (it has houses and a school)
- The road from Slaggyford through Ayle goes over a single track bridge and is signed ‘Light traffic only’

None of those fit in with the guidance on the wiki.

What problem are you trying to solve, and what guidelines are you using for choosing road classification? If you’re trying to solve a specific problem then please give details and perhaps there’s some alternative tagging which needs adding to fix it, which fits with the general tagging consensus.

As it stands, these changes seem incorrect to me, and if you continue to not reply then I’ll need to escalate this. Problem solving comes from discussing problems :)

Please can you reply before making further changes to road classification across the country.

Hiya, I’d like to ask again what basis you’re making these changes on, and what sources you’re using. Have you been along these roads? A lot of them have width restrictions, and I don’t think can realistically be described as tertiary roads. The Hause in particular is a dead end which is barely wide enough for one car, with few passing places.

I’m sure there are places in the Lakes where the road classifications in OSM aren’t right, but you are a relatively new user, and you seem to be changing a lot of them all at once. Have you read the guidance on the wiki about road classification, and do you have good local knowledge of these roads?

highway=tertiary
highway=unclassified
osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom

In particular note the guidance on the last page: “[highway=tertiary is] generally used only on roads wide enough to allow two cars to pass safely where adequate road markings are in place”

Interested to hear your thoughts :)

Hiya, are you sure the whole of Cavendish Dock Road should be highway=service? The first portion of it accesses an industrial estate, and has a fairly significant junction with the A5087, and pavements.

Hi, thanks for your reply, and for cutting it back to Hare Lane. I think that’s reasonable. If you’ve visited South Walney (which I’d recommend, it’s lovely), you’ll know that it’s really not a great road beyond that point and IMO does not count as tertiary.

Road alignment to what? What are your sources here? This is a lot of road changes across the South Lakes to be doing without giving a source or more than two words to explain the motivation for the changes :)

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

There might well be a separate flat/dwelling of some sort in part of the farmhouse, but the farmhouse as a whole is still one building, built as one building.

If it were split (and to do so, you’d need to know the nature of any additional dwelling in it), the heritage tagging would have to be carefully handled so it still represented Heritage England listing.

Wow, good effort!

I’ve reverted this as changeset/179508006 because effectively all it did was add addresses to two bus shelters, which can’t receive post.

Ah, I’d not noticed the changeset was still open (OSMCha is not good at highlighting that), so sorry if my edit collided with yours, that wasn’t intentional.

building=residential is indeed a good catch-all for this kind of situation, and a clear way of indicating that an on-the-ground survey is needed to refine the building type further.

This is looking fun! Do the building parts which don’t touch the ground need min_height? min_height=*

I’m completely guessing here since I’ve never tried to map a roof in this much detail.

What are you using to visualise it? I tried looking at https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=54.0453726&lon=-2.7812111&zoom=21 but it’s not doing a very good job of rendering it.

Hiya, what’s the reason for changing this to tertiary? highway=tertiary is defined as for “roads connecting smaller settlements” (highway=tertiary), and the road which goes to the south end of Walney definitely isn’t; it’s a dead end to a nature reserve. :)