| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 137874735 by hughrt @ 2023-06-28 11:23 | 1 | 2025-03-04 14:16 | DaveF ♦1,564 | HiIs this path still closed?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729309056 |
| 133932166 by hughrt @ 2023-03-21 09:46 | 1 | 2023-12-23 17:04 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello,I'm guessing that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1135419642 should perhaps be "designation=public_footpath"?Best Regards,Andy |
| 135933857 by hughrt @ 2023-05-10 12:10 | 1 | 2023-06-01 23:33 | Mikey Co ♦27 | I'm confused as a number of footpaths between Avebury and the A4 have vanished, all of which were permissive and well used paths, including the one alongside West Kennet Avenue. I'm guessing it's this changeset which has deleted them? Is this a permanent change, and even if it was, it... |
| 2 | 2023-06-01 23:42 | Mikey Co ♦27 | https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/wiltshire/avebury/around-silbury-hillThis walk for example uses two of the paths | |
| 3 | 2023-06-05 13:58 | hughrt | Hi! Thank you for your comment. Having spoken at length with the ranger team and archaeologists on site, we have opted to delete some paths in this area as these routes are causing damage to the Scheduled Ancient Monument / World Heritage Site (WHS). The National Trust have a duty of care to conse... | |
| 4 | 2023-06-06 08:57 | Mikey Co ♦27 | Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I can now understand why you want to remove the paths completely, though from a "mapping" point of view, it's perhaps more helpful to leave the paths in, even if their access is removed, as visually (especially in the aerial photos) they'll ... | |
| 5 | 2023-06-06 15:07 | hughrt | Hi, Thanks for your quick response. We have discussed the possibility of retaining paths and using the access=no, highway=no, disused:highway and abandoned:highway tags to reflect the fact that routes may still exist on the ground. However, such tags have minimal / low usage in OSM, are not rendered... | |
| 6 | 2023-06-07 09:13 | hughrt | NB: We have had one case near Scafell Pike that was resolved by retaining the path and using the disused:highway tag. This was deemed as the most appropriate option, given we do not have the legal right to prevent access on CROW land. At Stonehenge / Avebury WHS, access permissions differ (ie. permi... | |
| 7 | 2023-06-08 19:39 | Mikey Co ♦27 | Thanks for the reply. In terms of West Kennet Avenue, to an extent people walk down a certain path because they are "told to" by the grass being cut short or worn down...As a final comment, I was slightly disappointed that the path over the hill has been removed, as it never seemed that ... | |
| 8 | 2023-06-09 13:09 | hughrt | Hi Mikey Co. Waden Hill, which overlooks Silbury Hill, is also permissive open access, with signage on the ground to explain this and to encourage visitors to move freely across the fields to distribute foot traffic. | |
| 9 | 2023-06-09 13:10 | hughrt | Thanks for pointing out the naming of Byway 5 as "The Ridgeway". This was my error and I've fixed it now. | |
| 10 | 2023-06-10 19:55 | markbeverley ♦3 | Hello, I'm also a bit confused about these changes. I'm referring specifically to the removal of the path over Waden Hill and the path which it connects to east of the Avenue which then joins to the path north of the A4.Firstly, the paths are still being mown - from what I can tell they ... | |
| 11 | 2023-10-09 08:53 | hughrt | Hi Mark, Thanks for your comment and apologies for the late response. The seasonally mown areas are temporary and can change location to reduce erosion impacts on the archaeology below, and they sit within wider areas of permissive open access, which is why we have chosen to map them in this wa... | |
| 12 | 2023-10-09 11:40 | Mikey Co ♦27 | HelloMy opinion on the mapping of these "paths" is that while OSM might show a path going across an area of open access, it's not as if people rigidly just stick to exactly the same line on the map. UNLESS the grass is mown to encourage people to only follow that route. Waden Hill i... | |
| 141595674 by hughrt @ 2023-09-22 09:27 | 1 | 2023-09-28 16:43 | mapboy63 ♦23 | Why have ways 25694104, 25694054, etc. been tagged as bicycle=no? |
| 2 | 2023-09-29 10:00 | hughrt | Hi, thanks for bringing this mistake to my attention. I've amended the path now. | |
| 3 | 2023-09-29 15:26 | mapboy63 ♦23 | Thanks. | |
| 137881784 by hughrt @ 2023-06-28 14:17 | 1 | 2023-06-29 10:43 | DaveF ♦1,564 | HiCould you please provide a link to documentation which permits the NT to remove access to this signed cycle route?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243950938#map=16/51.4021/-2.3211https://goo.gl/maps/77Rc692Vq312vZ4w8Who is responsible for its maintenance of surface, benches, litter bi... |
| 2 | 2023-07-11 09:05 | hughrt | Thanks for your comment. This way is on an area of land that has been recently acquired by the National Trust from the local council. As part of the acquisition, the NT inherited the existing access permissions and signage from the council, along with the responsibility for the path surface maintena... | |
| 135966858 by hughrt @ 2023-05-11 08:55 | 1 | 2023-05-20 22:00 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello,Has the White Horse Trail also been completely moved to the eastern route? Currently it's on a bit f both.Best Regards,Andy |
| 131417928 by hughrt @ 2023-01-18 11:07 | 1 | 2023-01-18 14:17 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Hiya, are you sure about access=no on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/608945404? That means nobody can access the track, not even the owner. |
| 2 | 2023-01-18 14:47 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131426074, thanks! | |
| 131415263 by hughrt @ 2023-01-18 10:07 | 1 | 2023-01-18 14:19 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Hi, are you sure that motor_vehicle=private is correct for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23910293? As I understand it (I haven’t visited for a few months) that’s the only access road for the caravan site.If that’s correct, should it be motor_vehicle=customers instead? |
| 131113820 by hughrt @ 2023-01-10 16:27 | 1 | 2023-01-10 16:38 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Hi, thanks for this and, more generally, for the work the NT is doing on OSM :)Two things I noticed while checking this over:1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150945859 is tagged as designation=public_footpath, but foot=permissive. That seems slightly contradictory — should it be fo... |
| 2 | 2023-01-11 09:01 | hughrt | Thanks very much for spotting these, I've gone back and amended now :) | |
| 3 | 2023-01-11 10:53 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Thanks!For anyone else following along, the fixes have been made as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131136096 | |
| 131136096 by hughrt @ 2023-01-11 08:59 | 1 | 2023-01-11 10:53 | gurglypipe ♦873 | For anyone who looks at this in future, it’s a fixup to some minor issues in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131113820 |
| 130121718 by hughrt @ 2022-12-15 16:04 | 1 | 2022-12-18 08:06 | BCNorwich ♦4,855 | Hello There, I've noticed on some of your changesets that there are several warnings about crossing highways and other problems (as seen above). The highway problems are a particular nuisance as they can disrupt routing. I wonder if you've noticed these warnings and have remedied those... |
| 2 | 2022-12-21 08:32 | BCNorwich ♦4,855 | Hi, There is a problem with a highway crossing the stream, Way: East Water (29093946). Here there is a highway track crossing the stream at a ford and there has been a bridge (which is also a form of highway), mapped as on top of the track. Is it a ford, a bridge or both.Regards Bernard. | |
| 3 | 2022-12-21 09:20 | hughrt | Hi Bernard, Thanks for pointing this out. The single track road fords through the stream and there is a footbridge next to this. Best wishes, Hugh | |
| 4 | 2022-12-22 07:23 | BCNorwich ♦4,855 | Hi Thanks for the info, would you like to correct the situation, please? Or should I do it, if so is the bridge north or south of the ford and is the track through the ford only or over the bridge as well?Regards Bernard. | |
| 5 | 2022-12-22 09:20 | hughrt | Apologies Bernard I mistakenly thought you were referring to where the minor road fords the East Water and the adjacent bridge, further to the south. I've fixed the offending ford/bridge and checked the crossings of the entire stream. Best wishes, Hugh | |
| 130299598 by hughrt @ 2022-12-20 17:16 | 1 | 2022-12-21 08:22 | BCNorwich ♦4,855 | Hi, You've placed part of footpath Way: 1123690980 on top of an existing track making a duplicated section of highway. This could disrupt routing so I've removed your duplicate section and amended the track.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2022-12-21 09:16 | hughrt | Thanks very much for sorting Bernard. | |
| 130240208 by hughrt @ 2022-12-19 09:31 | 1 | 2022-12-20 07:33 | BCNorwich ♦4,855 | Duplicated ford Node: 10272890485 is removed. Regards Bernard. |
| 128725716 by hughrt @ 2022-11-10 10:20 | 1 | 2022-11-10 11:10 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap :)This changeset covers quite a large area (Bristol to Bamburgh), which is discouraged (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets). I’m guessing it’s probably accidental, but please watch out for that in future.... |
| 2 | 2022-11-10 11:50 | hughrt | Hi @gurglypipe Thanks very much for the constructive comments! The mural has been painted over - I'll be sure to add more context in my future changeset comments :) |