Heya, when you’re adding buildings (like I see you’ve been doing a lot recently!) could you please make sure that your background imagery is aligned to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer before starting to edit. Otherwise the buildings will not be correctly lined up with the coordinate system, and it’s very hard to ensure that different bits of mapping remain lined up with each other as satellite imagery is updated.

The OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer is the main source of truth in the UK for aligning imagery.

To use the parcels:
1. Open the Background Settings in ID and tick the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer
2. Scroll down to the Imagery Offset settings
3. Adjust the offset of the satellite imagery until it matches the cadastral parcels. You might need to zoom in, as the parcels (blue lines) are only visible at higher zoom levels.
4. It’s generally easy to align to a hedge junction or corner. Aligning to a building corner doesn’t work due to parallax error from the height of the building.
5. You might need to check alignment in a few places around an area, as some of the parcels are incomplete due to missing land registry data.
6. The offsets for Bing imagery for this area of Lancaster are about 2.42, -0.28. They will differ between different areas of town and between different satellite imagery providers.

Unfortunately you can’t rely on all of Lancaster to be correctly aligned already. I’m making sure that anything I map from now on (since a few months ago) is aligned to the cadastral parcels, and slowly updating alignments that way. The goal is to have everything aligned to them.

I hope this makes sense; please say if there’s anything I can clarify. Thanks.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

A couple of suggestions based on this edit:

1. Please keep edits geographically localised. This edit touches objects in Derry and in Alexandra. Different OSM editors in different parts of the world have different conventions, so changesets which cross country boundaries are a bit disruptive.

So this change should probably have been one changeset to add the new houses in Derry, and another to change the playground in Alexandra.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

2. You can use the ‘Q’ key to automatically square the corners of selected buildings. This makes it a lot easier to draw regular houses!

Happy editing :)

Hi, please consider limiting the size of your changesets to smaller geographical areas.

Wide-ranging changesets are hard for other contributors to review, especially when they cross country boundaries as different local OSM groups may have different approaches to mapping.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Please also use more informative changeset descriptions than a single word, otherwise it’s hard to work out what you were intending to change.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Nice one :D
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120759810

Hi. If the path is faint, perhaps that could be indicated in the tagging by using trail_visibility=*? That might avoid other editors deleting the path in future because they can’t find it on the ground or don’t think its on-the-ground visibility warrants it being on the map. Just a suggestion :)

Hi, thanks for editing OpenStreetMap.

When editing buildings, you can use the ‘Q’ key to square up the corners automatically. This makes it a lot easier to draw regular rectangle shapes, which makes the map neater. Thanks!

Hiya, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Note that when editing buildings, it helps a lot to press the ‘Q’ key to auto-square their corners. This makes it a lot easier to draw (or resize) regular building shapes.

Thanks :)

Hiya. In future please consider updating the shop nodes which no longer exist, rather than deleting them. Deleting them loses the information that a shop exists there, and its address data (if set).

Disused shops can be tagged like this: disused:shop=*

Thanks for your edits :)

I would have thought that a Norwegian-localised renderer could fall back to using name= if name:no= was not set, but I’m not going to argue it!

Thanks for your edits :)

Hi, when making changes like this please consider splitting them into smaller, more localised changesets, and providing a summary of the changes which is specific to what you’ve actually changed.

This changeset spans Exmoor up to near Carlisle, which means that local mappers for those two areas have to verify changes they’re not familiar with.

In addition it changes the height and location of a mountain peak, and adds new megalith sites, neither of which count as “Correct[ing] tags on some stone circles”.

By splitting changesets up and providing relevant changeset comments (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments) you allow others in the community to easily see and verify changes to the map.

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks!

This reverts changesets:
changeset/119885177
changeset/119886209

Hi, is it really that useful to add tags like name:no=Lancaster, where the name is not translated? That implies that the Norwegian translation of the city is ‘Lancaster’, but in reality I’m guessing there just isn’t a Norwegian translation.

Heya. When you’re editing around Ingleborough and the Dales, can you please make sure not to delete the bare_rock=limestone_pavement tagging on areas of limestone pavement?

They are fairly ecologically unique and are unlike other areas of bare rock, so it’s helpful to be able to differentiate them from more ‘ordinary’ bare rock (which also exists in the Dales).

Thanks!

Nice!

Would it make sense to remove the BBQ site entirely? Have the National Trust removed it physically?

Added in changeset/119374187, thanks for the photo!

Heya. When you were surveying here, did you spot the new ChargeMyStreet EV charging station which is supposed to be in the car park? See note/3105747. Apparently it’s been installed recently, but I’ve not been in the area to check yet.

If you are still in the area and have some time, surveying it would be really useful. If you’re not familiar with EV charging stations then please take some photos of the unit and its surroundings, and some closeups of the sockets, display panel and any nearby notices.

If you’re not in the area any more, or not bothered about surveying it, no worries :)

👍 thanks for your work on this!

Heya. If you can (if you’ve surveyed the data), it’s probably better to tag these with the power output of the station or individual sockets: amenity=charging_station#Power_output

That avoids using the name= tag as a description, and means the power data is machine readable for if someone wanted to render high-power charging stations differently in a map or something like that.

If the rails were still in place, each way would look like a railway so would need describing as such. But the cycle path is now fairly far removed from being a railway, so perhaps shouldn’t be described as looking like one. Just a suggestion.