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. :)

Looks great! I’ve tweaked the roof type for the main part of the building in changeset/179340172, let me know what you think :)

Hiya, thanks for your contribution to OpenStreetMap.

I’ve undone these changes as the ford was already correctly mapped here: it’s a public right of way, so needs to be mapped. The impassability of it was already tagged with various tags.

changeset/178948274

(Replied on changeset/178522105, let’s keep discussion there)

Hiya, thanks for your reply and sorry for the slowness of mine.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to try and improve the map to help people stay out of trouble. It’s good to have more local knowledge in the map :)

I think the correct fix here is for those navigation apps to render walls with different lifecycle prefixes, in much the same way that Harveys render abandoned walls in grey (rather than black).

Do you know which apps people are using most commonly? It would be worth one of us approaching them to improve their rendering of the data.

In terms of getting abandoned walls to render on openstreetmap.org itself, that would need an issue report to be filed here: https://github.com/openstreetmap-carto/openstreetmap-carto/issues

The difference between in-use, disused and abandoned walls is a bit of a matter of personal judgement. I’d say that ones which are no longer sheep-proof should be tagged as disused or abandoned. Maybe disused if they are mostly whole but with some fallen down sections, and abandoned if they’re worse than that. ruins:barrier=wall if they’re just a low mound of rock or have been robbed out.

That said, sheep can get over anything if they want to!

Super, thanks for checking :)

Nice work!

Great, it looks like it is now correctly tagged. Thanks for clarifying! :D

Should this one have motor_vehicle=private on it, if only authorised (e.g. council) vehicles are allowed on it?

Hi, thanks for your attention to detail, but I’ve reverted this change because the walls were already correctly tagged as present but abandoned using a lifecycle prefix: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Reverted as changeset/178524173