| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 131047728 by AWMapper @ 2023-01-09 10:18 | 1 | 2025-06-05 18:21 | A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu ♦9 | Hi,As bicycle, horse, motor_vehicle=yes for way 30246707, could I remove the permissive_footpath tag?Thanks |
| 140798638 by AWMapper @ 2023-09-04 10:55 | 1 | 2023-09-04 18:30 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | Although iD rather unhelpfully presents boxes for all common access modes whether they're relevant to the highway type or not, a highway=footway is implicitly bicycle=no + horse=no + motor_vehicle=no. Adding them does no harm, but it's redundant and usually pointless, unless reflecting an ... |
| 2 | 2023-09-05 09:14 | AWMapper | Hi rskedgell,Thank you for your comment. This edit was made as part of an organised editing effort by the National Trust. For the sake of clarity and inclusivity we have been applying foot, horse, bicycle and motor vehicle access tags to all rights of way and permissive routes. Please see the di... | |
| 135290950 by AWMapper @ 2023-04-24 08:34 | 1 | 2023-04-24 11:29 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Heya, thanks for your work around Scafell at the moment! :DRather than deleting the line here, it might be better to keep the line but remove the highway=path tagging from it, and leave a note on it (as you have) which says it’s closed for conservation.That way, if someone else comes a... |
| 2 | 2023-04-24 14:57 | AWMapper | Many thanks for the advice. I've made the suggested changes.Have a good day :) | |
| 3 | 2023-05-04 17:54 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Someone is saying here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135709994#c1025020 that this path doesn’t have any signage on the ground to indicate it’s closed (last week, at least).Is that something that’s planned? What’s the NT policy on signing or barricading paths whi... | |
| 4 | 2023-05-11 18:39 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We're aware that there's been a bit of an "edit war" here (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1086252957 for the to an fro tagging). In cases such as this, where a path really is closed due to e.g. erosion control, then I... | |
| 5 | 2023-05-12 07:27 | AWMapper | The team on the ground have carried out works to block this path and to restore it to a more natural condition and it is now less visible on the ground. However, as it is open access land, we cannot stop people using this route, though we do want to discourage it to prevent further erosion. With reg... | |
| 6 | 2023-05-12 07:38 | AWMapper | Hello Andy,Thanks for your very useful comment above. I will look at making the suggested changes to the tagging.Kind regards,Andy | |
| 7 | 2023-05-15 11:48 | gurglypipe ♦873 | I’ve marked the path as disused:highway=path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136122727 as suggested, thanks very much for the feedback and suggestion, SomeoneElse.AWMapper, thanks for the update about works on the ground and plans for signage, that’s good to hear.I don... | |
| 8 | 2023-05-15 15:30 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7131 . | |
| 9 | 2023-07-04 13:57 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Oddly, someone thinks that this path is still open - perhaps it is worth commenting on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138109479 ?Also, photos would be great... | |
| 10 | 2023-07-17 15:18 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Andy from the DWG here again. We've just heard from the National Trust again. Among other things they have said "The path is really just a short cut through steep and loose mountain habitat" and "blocking the path was a matter of disguising the route by rearranging stone and sc... | |
| 11 | 2023-07-17 15:22 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | In addition, we are aware (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1086252957 ) that one person has been creating "sock-puppet" accounts to try and add this back as a "path". If they try this again (without producing pictures to back up their change) their edit will be reverted. | |
| 131728922 by AWMapper @ 2023-01-26 11:27 | 1 | 2023-05-26 16:30 | Strimplers ♦33 | Good afternoon.Last time I was in this region it was possible to legally cycle from Helston to Porthleven through the Penrose Estate and along the cliff. Has this facility been withdrawn.Regards. |
| 2 | 2023-07-10 07:55 | AWMapper | Good morning, my apologies for the delay in replying. Any changes were made after discussions with the local Ranger team. To the best of my knowledge the cycling route is via the inland Public Bridleway. Also the south eastern section, close to Loe Bar (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/554903440/hi... | |
| 137689331 by AWMapper @ 2023-06-23 13:27 | 1 | 2023-06-23 13:35 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Would it make sense to add tagging for the physical condition of the track, to discourage satnavs from taking the route? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack#Physical_conditionFor example, tracktype=grade3, smoothness=horrible, width=2m (these are guesses; I haven’t surv... |
| 2 | 2023-06-23 14:02 | AWMapper | Thanks for comment and advice. I've added tracktype and smoothness that appear appropriate. | |
| 3 | 2023-06-23 14:05 | gurglypipe ♦873 | 👍 | |
| 135293564 by AWMapper @ 2023-04-24 09:38 | 1 | 2023-06-08 23:39 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello,In this change you've increased the san_scale for https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/839038651 from alpine_hiking to difficult_alpine_hiking. Was that deliberate?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2023-06-09 13:35 | SK53 ♦864 | I think this is now overgraded. T5 is not something likely to be encountered on any widely used 'path' in the Lakes or most other places in the British Isles.Lord's Rake is (or certainly) was an unpleasant ascent, and it does have some objective dangers over recent years from rock... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-09 14:01 | AWMapper | Hello both,thank you for your constructive comments on this change. This change was made in consultation with staff who have a lot of experience working on the ground in this area. We attempted to interpret the SAC Scale and apply it as appropriate. As it appears, from the feedback, that w... | |
| 4 | 2023-06-16 13:38 | SK53 ♦864 | Thanks, I forgot to mention that I did recently look at grading of paths in the Lakes (after the Barf incident around Christmas) and wrote a couple of entries about them:https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SK53/diary/400702https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SK53/diary/400712http://sk53-osm.blog... | |
| 136971395 by AWMapper @ 2023-06-05 12:49 | 1 | 2023-06-08 23:45 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello,All of your changesets seem to have the same comment, "Work in this area is to update way locations and access tags at NT's $place. For more info on the organised editing activity see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths". Ple... |
| 2 | 2023-06-08 23:48 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Actually, the changes in this changeset look at bit odd: https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=136971395 . Presumably the "foot=no" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/929336505 is supposed to encourage people on foot to avoid the cattle grid rather than saying that they are legall... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-09 14:23 | AWMapper | Hello SomeoneElse,thanks you for your comments. Yes the change was intended to encourage use of the alternate route and avoid the cattle grid. If there are any generally accepted ways of describing this situation I'd be keen to learn more.Kind regardsAndy | |
| 4 | 2023-06-09 14:32 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | There's a cattle grid on it, so I'd imagine that most horse routers will try and avoid that :)If it was a locked gate on a private bit of road and the bridleway actually ran to the side, then a bunch of "no" tags would make sense, but presumably foot access isn't actually ... | |
| 5 | 2023-06-09 15:09 | AWMapper | I can see your point. I've updated the foot tag. | |
| 136416454 by AWMapper @ 2023-05-22 14:02 | 1 | 2023-05-23 11:37 | DaveF ♦1,564 | Values equating to 'no' are not required as the legal status of the ways defines which transport modes can access them. |
| 135305975 by AWMapper @ 2023-04-24 14:53 | 1 | 2023-04-24 15:04 | gurglypipe ♦873 | (See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135290950) |
| 135305899 by AWMapper @ 2023-04-24 14:51 | 1 | 2023-04-24 15:02 | gurglypipe ♦873 | (See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135290950) |
| 131778617 by AWMapper @ 2023-01-27 15:44 | 1 | 2023-04-07 18:54 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Hi there AWMapper. I'm glad that the National Trust are hoping to contribute to OpenStreetMap but I found a number of the changes you made to Helsby Hill in this edit to be problematic. You have deleted a number of existing footways, most notably the Slash Chutes. You have also removed public... |
| 134297001 by AWMapper @ 2023-03-30 09:59 | 1 | 2023-03-30 10:39 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Hiya, thanks for your recent edits to improve the access tagging for the NT around Windermere!One comment: when adding culverts to streams (like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/932521760), please make sure that the whole stream doesn’t accidentally get tagged as being culverted. :)I&... |
| 2 | 2023-03-31 08:33 | AWMapper | Hi, many thanks for sorting my mistake. I'll keep an eye out for that in the future. | |
| 133901956 by AWMapper @ 2023-03-20 14:33 | 1 | 2023-03-22 10:15 | AWMapper | Correction - Work was done to access tags and statutory designations at NT's Morden Hall. |
| 132203975 by AWMapper @ 2023-02-07 12:34 | 1 | 2023-02-09 22:18 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Thanks for updating this (I absolutely don't want to be following an old path over a cliff!) but it looks like you've added the new paths to the wrong relation.https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2376086 is the "super relation" - a collection of other relations for the South... |
| 2 | 2023-02-10 16:18 | AWMapper | Thanks for your comment.I've corrected the relation to the South West Coast Path.I will confirm with Cornwall Council on the status of the alternate route as a Public Footpath and update as necessary.Kind regards,Andy | |
| 3 | 2023-02-26 23:15 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello,There's still a bit of a gap in the South West Coast Path relation in this area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2373766#map=16/50.9214/-4.5497 . Should that now route over https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1138299551 now?Best Regards,Andy | |
| 4 | 2023-02-27 08:33 | AWMapper | Hi Andy,Sorry, but I have no idea which route the SW Coast path takes at that point as I haven't made any edits there.Kind regards | |
| 5 | 2023-03-01 11:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | No worries - I just thought that you might have the "inside track" on that!I'll ask the creator of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1138299551 . | |
| 133131789 by AWMapper @ 2023-02-28 14:40 | 1 | 2023-02-28 16:26 | dankarran ♦86 | Streetside imagery suggests the entrance by the roundabout is a gate for pedestrians, but this edit has changed it to a service road, is that intended? I can see there is a vehicular access gate just to the west of the pedestrian entrance, but if it's intended for vehicular access, it shoul... |
| 2 | 2023-03-01 08:14 | AWMapper | Thank for pointing this out. I've made the necessary changes. | |
| 132301556 by AWMapper @ 2023-02-09 11:12 | 1 | 2023-02-09 22:27 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello,Unless there's been a closure or a diversion, I presume that the gap in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2374237#map=19/50.61217/-4.77978 should presumably be part of the local South West Coast Path relation there? Also, presumably the bit of path in grey at https://map.atownsen... |
| 2 | 2023-02-10 16:03 | AWMapper | Thanks for your comment.I've amended the relation to the South West Coast Path so there should no longer be a gap.I'm checking with the council to confirm that the status of the alternate route an will amend as necessary. | |
| 3 | 2023-02-10 16:17 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Great, thanks! https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=2374237 !There's still a gap in https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=14635746 (entirely unrelated to your edit, I think - and I didn't know that that was even a thing until spotting it in this changeset). | |
| 132199331 by AWMapper @ 2023-02-07 10:55 | 1 | 2023-02-07 13:55 | Casey_boy ♦83 | Hi,In this changeset you removed the public footpath tagging of \tMorwenstow FP 7 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1138336312/historyWas this intentional? I appreciate the path deviates slightly from the local authority's PRoW data but it seems this is likely the "on-the-ground&q... |
| 2 | 2023-02-07 14:19 | Casey_boy ♦83 | Same here (Morwenstow FP 12) too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054841757/history | |
| 3 | 2023-02-08 11:22 | AWMapper | Thanks for your comment. Changes have been made following discussion with staff on the ground and following OSM guidance: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Further_guidance_on_tagging_Public_Rights_of_Way_in_the_United_Kingdom#On-the-ground_route_differs_from_official_route. | |
| 4 | 2023-02-10 09:15 | Casey_boy ♦83 | Hi, did you physically check the local authority's definitive map and statement for this route? And not just their online data - which can be incorrect/off. I think, since you are mapping on behalf of the National Trust there is a higher expectation on you to make sure you do not detrimentally... | |
| 131372143 by AWMapper @ 2023-01-17 10:29 | 1 | 2023-02-02 16:48 | ohmanger ♦39 | Hi, I can see you've marked the Tramway near Pandy as not accessible to horse or cyclists (https://osm.org/way/55740719). This seems to conflict with the signed route The Ceiriog Trail managed by Wrexham council. The information on their website mentions it as a permissive bridleway https://www... |
| 2 | 2023-02-03 12:11 | AWMapper | Thanks for pointing out my error. This has now been corrected. | |
| 3 | 2023-02-04 10:57 | ohmanger ♦39 | Great thanks 👍 |