Hi, really nice to see another taking an interest in recording the condition of our rivers and streams.
Doing a fair bit around Bristol myself I'm aware of how much has been culverted, making it tricky to map into OSM. I know, from access to other maps incompatible with the ODbL, that the culverted streams have been significantly altered, to the extent that they're de facto surface drains and this sadly applies to the Cranbrook.
Do you have any other evidence that says otherwise? I fear, if not, that using 150yr old maps within an urban environment isn't particularly useful, and at worst doesn't meet OSM's 'Good Practice' (see pt.2 of osm.wiki/Good_practice#Editing_Standards).
Do you have another place where you can copy this (and the other related) changesets to still be of value to your project?

Hi, welcome to mapping the cycleways in Bristol if you're new to it - nice to have more people interested! Keep in mind though, that, unless it's expressly signed, pedestrians are legally permitted to use cycleways in the UK, so the foot=no tag should be removed and the information that it's a cycle track (per legislation) is shown by the segregated=yes tag which should be added here.
On a personal preference note, I'd also not add the way at all until the route was complete, or at least use highway=construction until that point

Hi, what's your evidence for this change? Are you officially-affiliated with the WECA?

Thanks for understanding - you're right about Back Bridge St too. I had thought it was still listed on OSOpenRoads, like Bridge St is, but it's not. I'll leave Bridge St though, that's signed on the ground (or was before the construction started), and listed on OSOpenRoads.
Sorry for jumping in like this

Ah, of course. I would have expected this stretch to retain the history after the split as it's more prominent.
I was aware of some street renaming nearby by the same user which we had chat about and ended up reverting. I hadn't spotted that the same was done here. Only Back Bridge St remains as a named highway so I'm tempted to revert it on the basis of it being inaccurate.
I'd say the same of Cherry Ave as it's not a name which has been adopted by the local community yet, but would be quite suitable on a umap or equivalent.

Hi, did you create Cherry Ave from scratch? I can't quite believe that it wasn't already mapped but your changeset suggests that was the case.
Also, where did you find its name? I wasn't aware that it, or any of the paths in Castle Park, was still called by their old road names apart from possibly St Mary Le Port

Brill, thanks. I was worried that you might have been using Google as a source, but I've since found that ESRI has got some up-to-date imagery too so I'll crack on with theirs.
I had a wander along on the weekend and noticed the stream is fully diverted into the new ponds and scrapes, should you wish to change the route of the stream way to run through the new course

Hi, where did you get the information to map the set of new wetland ponds here?:
way/1486002388

Definitely agree that it's good to promote the use of the handful of cycle lanes which are appearing around town by preferring separate ways. Gonna need to keep on top of the links between the highway and the cycleway as there are loads more than the few which you've added 'for the router'.
As for shared paths, I'm not familiar with the linetype you're referring to. Which app / platform is that used in?
On this changeset, I wondered why you chose to change this way: way/1091056203 from a footway to cycleway?

Hi Andy, nice to have another interested in the cycle paths around Bristol. Just wanted to highlight a few things to consider when mapping a cycleway separately, using this as an example;
- The original highway will need its tags updating also (e.g cycleway:right=track > cycleway:right=separate)
- You'll need to consider the routing implications, ie, here the separating kerb has gaps regularly along its length which allows cyclists to join / leave at regular points, making it possible to turn into / from the adjoining roads to the north. By mapping the cycleway separately you lose this information and would have to map individual cycleway=link ways at every gap in the kerb to get it back.
- Changing footway=sidewalk ways to highway=cycleway for non-segregated pavements also, in my view, loses important information about the quality of design of cycleway, and the relationship with the neighbouring road way tagged with sidewalk:*side=separate.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts before I get involved in making any edits. When, out of interest, did you survey this area and the Whitehouse Lane cycle path?

Hi,
Nice to have another pavement mapper around town :-)
It might be worth checking some of the details before uploading these kind of pavements made by offsetting other geometry - there's several places in this changeset where the surface=* is incorrect for some stretches, and they tend to follow the shape of the kerb rather than the centreline / routing line particularly across the wider areas. It would also be worth connecting at all junctions where there is an obvious desire route to cross (with appropriate barrier=kerb). Lastly, keep an eye out for sidewalk=* tags on the neighbouring highway and change them to sidewalk:(side):separate once you've added a pavement.

hi, there's something going on with the UPRNs at this property: way/268784271
None of the attributed UPRNs return a result on the findmyaddress service. Might they be out of date since the new owner submitted new addresses? Is that possible?

Hi Bernard,

Thanks for the heads-up. I very much struggled with clearing the 'errors' related to these multilevel plans in JOSM. I've not found a good example to follow for creating indoor routing over several levels (not layers).
A mapper prior to me used laterally-staggered `highway=footway`s to overcome the issue but I found that to be really messy and not scalable to multilevel buildings so have partially ignored the errors such as those highlighted by geofabrik for being false positives where the `level=` tag is present.
If you've got some good practice examples for me to follow and improve from, I'd be immensely grateful to see them!

Hi, Rachel,
You're right to be disappointed that the change has been made without consulting you, however it is the right action to take as there is a strong likelihood that the data you've added it the map is subject to copyright and therefore doesn't meet OSM terms of use for contributors.
You're right that data added which does meet those terms is then subsequently available for OSM users (i.e anyone who uses OSM to analyse the FWMC catchment in this case). If you want to continue to use OSM to hold the catchment boundary you'll need to get in touch with the copyright holder and request permission from them to release the licence so that it's compatible with the OSM licence.
A template letter of such a request can be found here: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
In the future, best practice is to list the source of the data you add to OSM within the changeset comments using the tag osm.wiki/Tag:'source='
I hope that clears things up for you

Hi, and welcome to the OSM community. Can you share where this boundary data is from and clarify whether it is subject to any copyright?
Thanks

OK, it's the first time I've looked at names, and I felt, similarly to you, that it was backwards.

As for the boundaries themselves, the first link shows land ownership, so it would only be appropriate to import that data into OSM if you've got evidence that access is directly linked to ownership. Is that the case?
What seems to be clear though, is that it's not a `leisure=nature_reserve`, and would likely be best represented by updating the existing `natural=forest` polygons into an MP with the appropriate access and operator tags added. Much as:
relation/3155570 or relation/1849496

Hi,
What exactly are you trying to map here? The land ownership, or everything that is publicly accessible? If it's the former, I don't know that it has a place on the OSM database, unless you wanted to highlight natural areas managed by 'operator=Natural Resources Wales': https://datamap.gov.wales/layers/inspire-nrw:NRW_FOREST_LEGAL_BOUND.

If it's the latter then an mp-relation with suitable access tags might be more appropriate.
Either way, I can't see any evidence that it's a nature reserve:
https://datamap.gov.wales/layers/inspire-nrw:NRW_LNR or
https://datamap.gov.wales/layers/geonode:nrw_nnr_declarations
and it'd be worth following the local language, i.e: 'name=Parc Coedwig Afan' , 'name:en=Afan Forest Park'

typo now fixed, thanks.

Hi 1LM, Could you take care to get familiar with the highways=* and access=* schema when making changes to these bus gate / LTN changes that you're evidently interested in. This access restriction you've attempted to map is already adequately mapped as access restrictions in the correct place immediately North of Glendare St. It also strikes me that you may be using data sources that are incompatible with the OSM ODb license as Bing has not updated their imagery for this area to show the access restrictions.
On a final point, please be aware that edits to highways in many places around the world will have relations dependent upon them and will need checking after any changes. For example, here you have broken the bus route 16 with these edits. I have taken the liberty of reverting this changeset for all of these reasons above. Do please reply if you feel there might be changes you feel are valid which might be implemented another way.

That's fine - thanks. I'm looking to focus on water infrastructure and hoping that there might be some crossover, but I guess gas is that much better signed for safety. Still, the geograph tip was a good reminder to have a look there occasionally - thanks.