The two lanes are only separated by paint, so they should be mapped as a single way. See osm.wiki/Highway_link#Link_geometry.

People can (and do) change between the lanes as they come down the on-ramp, and that could not be represented if it was drawn as two ways.

I don’t see how it can affect routing or traffic flow at all — could you explain what specifically you mean by that?

I think the tagging is already correct on this way: it is tagged as having two lanes.

OK there’s a few problems here now:

1. You absolutely must not use Ordnance Survey maps as a source for OSM, as the licensing does not permit it. There are a limited few of them (available as imagery in the ID editor) where the licensing allows them to be used, but maps like Explorer and Land Ranger absolutely cannot be used. See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence

2. I’ve checked against the definitive map (https://wmfc.highway-iams.uk/Live/PBLC/PIP/?cg=networks) and the rights of way overlay in ID is correct: there is no legal bridleway connection across the top of the Calf, only a footpath to the summit. Unless you have some (appropriately licensed) source which indicates that the landowner has given permission for bikes to be there, we should not map bikes as permitted in OSM.

3. It doesn’t matter what routes people take in practice, or what routes they put on an MTB website, or what routes they really want to have a legal RoW status, OSM has to stick to the ground truth and actual legal status. See osm.wiki/Verifiability :)

Great, thanks :)

Did you intend to drop the address, website and other tagging details from the campsite?

I’ve reverted this change as changeset/185250891, as per the above. If that’s not right, please reply and give some more information, thanks

Hiya, did you see my comments on changeset/185132873?

There are a number of fields here which were tagged as pasture (using the old farmland=pasture tagging) which will need their tagging fully updating rather than just changing the landuse= tagging.

i.e. landuse=meadow meadow=pasture
rather than landuse=farmland farmland=pasture

Please don’t forget to update those tags, otherwise you’re dropping detail from the map :)

While I acknowledge that opinions on multipolygons vs areas differ, and different mappers may choose different approaches when adding new things to the map, I strongly disagree that converting existing areas of the map from areas to multipolygons (or vice-versa) is a good thing to do.

It loses history (osm.wiki/Keep_the_history) and it runs a high risk of introducing errors (as evidenced by the 13+ edits it’s taken you to get to this point). That’s been 13 edits to get us to a point where the visual rendering of the map is basically where it was before, i.e. no additional data/detail added.

I understand data normalisation, but I don’t think those concepts are suitable to be blanket-applied to OSM. They trade duplicate lists of nodes in areas, for long lists of short ways in relations. In particular, they mean that what was previously one wall, with one set of attributes, now has to be split into many smaller lengths (bordering each field/farmyard/wood/etc), each with separate sets of attributes which can go out of sync.

I think there are examples in the extremes of both mapping styles, and a combination of the two styles is needed.

But in any case, I think that converting something mapped in one style, into another style, is a recipe for introducing friction and errors without actually improving the map. That is why I am suggesting reverting the edits. Then we’d be back to a known-good state (modulo the OSM Inspector error, which I think could be fixed relatively simply by just touching the existing relations around Kingsdale Head, unless you think otherwise?).

It sounds to me like the problems you’re having in selecting the correct way to edit are a usability problem with your editor — it’s fairly straightforward to select the right way/area in ID due to the shading on the inner edge of each way.

For areas which are snapped together along a series of nodes, ID also ensures that a newly added node is also part of both areas, which typically avoids the other problem you mentioned. It’s not something I’ve seen in practice on areas which were snapped together correctly already.

Conversely I think it’s easier for users to accidentally introduce problems into the database when multipolygons are in use, as they are more complex and less well understood. For example, extending a way which is already part of a multipolygon, or trying to delete a way which is part of a multipolygon. ID has some protections against this, but these often frustrate users who don’t understand the reasoning, and then they end up doing interesting/incorrect workarounds which break things even more.

Sorry for the long message, but I hope it explains my position and reasoning a bit better.

Super, thanks for checking and updating it :)

Indeed, I see you have created two multipolygons: one for the lower pastures, and one for the upper (rough) ones.

Scanning quickly through your edits here, though, I see at least these two fields which were tagged differently and which are no longer represented: changeset/185152204

More generally, I believe fields should always be mapped individually (either as an area or a multipolygon; personally I prefer the former because multipolygons are far too easy for people to break) because their use may change over time. In that eventuality, only the tagging has to be changed, rather than the more time consuming and error prone geometry.

This edit (185150976) also lost detail of the wall curves along the east side of the road (particularly just north of Braida Garth’s drive), all the gate nodes, and the farmyard area is missing a multipolygon type so isn’t rendered. There may be other problems I haven’t spotted yet.

I realise you set out to fix the OSM Inspector error for the moorland here (which I hadn’t spotted, good to know about), but completely reworking the valley to switch it to multipolygons can’t be a good use of anyone’s time. It’s bound to introduce additional errors like these.

It stings a bit in particular because I recently spent 10+ hours adding detail to Kingsdale, and I feel like what’s been done here has undone that (and removed the history of it, by deleting the areas). I realise you have probably spent quite a while on your edits too, though, in good faith.

I’m tempted to revert all the edits here and do a more focused fix myself on the OSM Inspector error on the moorland. It looks like that error is focused on Kingsdale Head, and the landuse could do with some more detail there anyway since their recent rewilding/planting projects. What would your thoughts be about that approach?

Hi, thanks for updating the tagging on these. Just a note — some of them still have farmland=pasture tagging which is outdated and should be replaced with meadow=pasture. I noticed two fields in the NE of this edit, but have not checked them all.

If you could update your editing script/practices to catch those tags (like crop=grass) and update them too, that would be helpful.

Heya, did you mean to tag this as a garage? It looks a lot like a house.

Why? These are separate fields, and they were each tagged differently. Why have you coalesced them all to a single area?

Can I ask why? Was something broken before? :)

Hiya, are you sure about this? The Public Rights of Way overlay in ID (which is derived from the council’s definitive map) says this particular stretch is a public footpath, not a bridleway. The bridleway descends to Bowderdale.

Thanks for fixing this! The duplicates were an accident (potentially caused by a bad network connection) and the original editor was wondering how to go about deleting them.

See discussion in changeset/184930685

Was deleting the duplicates straightforward to do in JOSM?

Looks like someone else has used JOSM to delete the duplicates in changeset/185075834

Hi, there was no geometry missing here and the road layout was correct. We do not map motorway on/off ramp lanes separately unless they are physically separated, and these ones are not (only separated by paint).

I have reverted this as changeset/184930254

Please check the wiki and editing guidelines, or talk to local editors, before making incorrect changes like this. Thank you

Oh I see, thank you for changing it back.

Do you know if the campsite is still in business?

Hiya, the website you’ve changed this to says it’s no longer available. Is that what you intended to do?

Hi, the road under construction was already mapped here. You should have changed its tagging to indicate that construction was complete, rather than drawing a new road over the top and leaving the construction line in place. That would have kept the contribution history and avoided duplicating the road.

Please take more care in your edits.

I have fixed this in changeset/184865842