[Talk-GB] Edits being made by a National Trust GIS team member

[Jon Pennycook]

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
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303392831 ). When it's less muddy, I will
check if the signage has changed on the latter to indeed forbid cyclists.
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.
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).

Jon

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, 13:33 Dave F via Talk-GB, <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
wrote:

> Hi
> There have been some edits being made by a member of the National
> Trust's (NT) GIS team across the country.
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Olivia%20Ragone/history#map=7/52.581/-0.801
>
> The quality of a changeset in my vicinity has lead me to believe the
> others require checking
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131387598
>
> She didn't respond to my changeset comments, but did acknowledge my
> private email saying she was willing to make corrections, but those
> changes were creating more erroneous data so I asked her to stop editing.
>
> When checking, a few things to look out for:
> * Adding designation=public_footpath & foot=designated to ways that
> aren't PROWs.
> * Remove designation=public_footpath tags from ways that are PROWs.
> * Missing out bridges & tunnels when amending way tags.
> * Deleting existing paths
> * Adding multiple barriers to the same node
> * Unnecessarily splitting ways
> * Adding way tags to nodes
>
> Her standard changeset comment:
> "All edits have been made as per an Organised Edit Programme agreed with
> OSM, and in consultation with National Trust rangers and gardeners. For
> more info:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths
> "
>
> Other than creating the wiki page she mentions, what collaboration has
> the NT had with OSM (DWG, OSMF etc?). Are there any 'NT rangers and
> gardeners' on this forum who could comment/clarify?
>
> I have to say, given the organisation & the fact its their GIS team, I'm
> quite disappointed in the quality of the amendments. I spent hours
> deciphering & checking the changes, including walking 6 miles to verify
> on ground signage. In hindsight I wish I'd reverted them.
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20230212/cc7c39c9/attachment.htm>