Resolved note #2786419

Hi Robert,

It seems you may well have walked the bridge which is noted as closed here:

note/2835897

Do you recall if you did, and if it's' therefore open again?

Thanks

Edward

Hi Andy

Just drawing your attention to my comment on a subsequent cs on this element, which you may have views on:

changeset/118125904

Cheers, eteb3

Hi ianc,

Just messaging to draw your attention to two notes, which claim a path you edited is "not a footpath" - presumably meaning, "not a public right of way".

I see you added the designation after Andy Mackay marked it "permissive".

Are you confident that's accurate, and the anonymous note-poster is wrong? Or could it be that it's better to revert to "permissive"?

Cheers,

eteb3

notes: osm.org/note=5408801
osm.org/note=5408805

Hi again conifermapper,

After another visit to the Mynydd Du Forest recently, I'm revising the map again. My edits in this area, recently and in previous years, have been based on walking it on the ground.

I hear what you say about tagging the cutlines: there is indeed a tag for that.

Some features that should be cutlines, you added as paths. Could you please change those paths to cutlines where that is *clearly* the situation on the ground?

Where it's not clear that it is a cutline, it would be better to delete your additions - although note I have edited some ways that I have verified as paths by walking them, and of course those should stay, as reflecting reality on the ground.

I think it is more appropriate for you to fix them than to ask someone else to do that.

I realise these edits are two years old now, and probably your mapping has developed since then. But it is worth re-emphasising that it is generally better to not add features where there is doubt, rather than to enthusiastically add features which turn out to be a misrepresentation of reality.

Also to note, the OS map is not as up-to-date for forest area as Bing imagery; and Bing imagery doesn't show the most recent felling (an extensive area I will try to add soon). Which is to say, observed reality on the ground is always the best source; otherwise proceed with caution.

Kind regards,

eteb3

Hi conifermapper,

Can you clarify your source for the natural=cliff you added on this changeset? Was it only from aerial imagery?

I climbed Nant Yr Ychen to Bwlch Gwyllt Meirch recently and didn't come across any cliffs on that route. I'm not aware of any at all in the Black Mountains, except the odd short length of outcrop at Rhos Dirion.

Thank you and happy mapping.

eteb3

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Source = survey and aerial imagery

Thanks. I’ll leave as is. I’ve added a “sic” note to the node.

Hi

Re Pole transformer here: 13377003701

Is there a typo in the name? The river is called Nant yr Ychen

Fluffed my source tags: source is ground survey (though also inferrable from the law)

That might be better.

I'm trying to show the name of the location. The chapel seems to go by the name "the chapel at Pen yr Heol". You'll know better than me how placenames go in Wales, but it seems to me that the "pen" must be the area, with both house and chapel taking their names from that area, rather than the other way round. It's the name of this area of land that I'm trying to show.

what would you do?

Hi BCNorwich,

Thanks for updating the building type here. I thought for a long while it had been a church before it was a mosque, but on my last visit I was told it had actually been a school - and forgot to change it. That's confirmed by late-C19 OS maps: https://maps.nls.uk/view/231277059

Should the building type therefore be building=school? I've understood that building=mosque would only be appropriate for a building that is built as a mosque. The only adaptations here, such as they are, are a minimalist frame around the pulpit, and a balcony for women (some of that visible here: https://ihsanmosque.com/)

Your thoughts welcome. It has always struck me that "building=mosque" *ought* to represent the current use, even if the building is an adapted former somethingorother; but a reasonably vociferous strand of opinion on the forums and wiki tell me otherwise.

Edward

I removed them because I understood tagging as a property of the main way was the preferred standard in this part of the world (there was mention of Uber adding sidewalks unhelpfully in London recently).

From your handle I assume you're active in Ipswich and I'm happy to defer to you if there is preferred local practice. I would have thought consistency across the UK may be better, but I'm no sidewalk expert so again, happy to follow your steer.

The only thing I'd check is that your proposal doesn't amount to tagging for the renderer: the fact that nearby streets have sidewalks as separate ways, and the consistency looks attractive to the eye, doesn't make it good mapping (though it may be good mapping for other reasons).

Your thoughts on that?

Thanks from me for contributing mosques!

Just so you know, it seems you have added Tin Mosque twice.

As a way: way/1494613388
As a node: node/13691368668

You could do one of two things:
1) Tag the building as building=mosque, and then remove the amenity= and religion= tags (assuming it is built as a mosque, and isn't a commercial building used as a mosque)
2) move the tags from the node to the building and delete the node.

I usually do (2), but either is acceptable.

I can do it if you like, but you may prefer to learn how to yourself - again, your choice.

Happy mapping.

Note made on CoMaps edit but not incorporated into tags by CoMaps app:

"Source:mosque = official Register of Places of Worship confirmed by multiple press reports
Source: address= register of places of worship, confirmed by planning docs Reading PL/21/0537"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-21T18:14:47Z
POI name: Al-Majid Centre
POI types: amenity-place_of_worship-muslim
#CoMaps ios 2026.04.23-19-ios

Thanks, I’ll switch the name and alt_name around in due course. (Might make alt_name a loc_name)

Oh, that'd be great!

Things I also try to get, if you get the chance: reg'd charity number; whether there is women's access (guessing not in your part of the world - mostly Deobandi territory); website.

An online mosques directory has the postcode as BB2 6PS.

Cheers.