<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
Glad this has been posted. I've had the same experience:</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132199331">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132199331</a></div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
The on the ground route (via Strava Heatmap) deviates from the council's PRoW data. However:</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
- We know the GIS data isn't always accurate and so I feel that we should be positive rather than negative with the tagging (i.e. assume the route probably is the public footpath unless we're 100% certain it isn't).<span></span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
- Seeing as they are mapping on behalf of the National Trust, if they remove the public footpath designation tags from a path, they should ensure the correct route is then properly mapped. </div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
I've also noticed that they are tagging inaccessible PRoWs with foot=no, which is a little odd since access tags are legal restrictions rather than accessibility restrictions. I've raised this on the wiki but got the same sort of boilerplate response:</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
Thanks.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto">
<br>
</div>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container" dir="auto"><br>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" style="font-size: 11pt;"><strong>From:</strong> Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><br>
<strong>Sent:</strong> Sunday, 12 February 2023, 14:56<br>
<strong>To:</strong> Talk Gb <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><br>
<strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [Talk-GB] Edits being made by a National Trust GIS team member<br>
</div>
<br>
<div dir="auto">I have also noticed some oddities from the National Trust edits - adding access tags to public highways near Mottistone, creation of a route=bicycle relation when their own leaflets say a mountain bike is required (so route=mtb would be better
and less likely to attract road bicycle routers) and setting ways in a Forestry England wood which were part of a designated/signposted cycling route as bicycle=no (eg <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303392831">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303392831</a>
). When it's less muddy, I will check if the signage has changed on the latter to indeed forbid cyclists.
<div dir="auto">I also don't understand why they are changing highway=footway and highway=bridleway to highway=path but that's a minor point given that they are explicitly tagging the access. </div>
<div dir="auto">On the subject of access, bicycle=no with motor_vehicle=private is an odd combination since I would assume the National Trust would forbid both equally rather than potentially preferring motorists (eg vehicle=private/no might be better and cover
both), unless they really dislike cyclists (my local Wildlife Trust which doesn't like cyclists has signs that mean that cyclists are unable to ride from the public highway to their car parks, so bicycle=no/motor_vehicle=private/customers would indeed apply
on their car park access roads).</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Jon</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, 13:33 Dave F via Talk-GB, <<a href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
Hi<br>
There have been some edits being made by a member of the National <br>
Trust's (NT) GIS team across the country.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Olivia%20Ragone/history#map=7/52.581/-0.801" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Olivia%20Ragone/history#map=7/52.581/-0.801</a><br>
<br>
The quality of a changeset in my vicinity has lead me to believe the <br>
others require checking<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131387598" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131387598</a><br>
<br>
She didn't respond to my changeset comments, but did acknowledge my <br>
private email saying she was willing to make corrections, but those <br>
changes were creating more erroneous data so I asked her to stop editing.<br>
<br>
When checking, a few things to look out for:<br>
* Adding designation=public_footpath & foot=designated to ways that <br>
aren't PROWs.<br>
* Remove designation=public_footpath tags from ways that are PROWs.<br>
* Missing out bridges & tunnels when amending way tags.<br>
* Deleting existing paths<br>
* Adding multiple barriers to the same node<br>
* Unnecessarily splitting ways<br>
* Adding way tags to nodes<br>
<br>
Her standard changeset comment:<br>
"All edits have been made as per an Organised Edit Programme agreed with <br>
OSM, and in consultation with National Trust rangers and gardeners. For <br>
more info: <br>
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths</a>"<br>
<br>
Other than creating the wiki page she mentions, what collaboration has <br>
the NT had with OSM (DWG, OSMF etc?). Are there any 'NT rangers and <br>
gardeners' on this forum who could comment/clarify?<br>
<br>
I have to say, given the organisation & the fact its their GIS team, I'm <br>
quite disappointed in the quality of the amendments. I spent hours <br>
deciphering & checking the changes, including walking 6 miles to verify <br>
on ground signage. In hindsight I wish I'd reverted them.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
DaveF<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>