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

[Jez Nicholson]

I for one and extremely proud to have an organisation on the level of the
National Trust using OSM. It is a huge stamp of approval for our project
over other *ahem* national mapping providers.

They engaged here a number of times, talked with OSMUK, and presented at
State of the Map. COVID lockdown slowed momentum but now they are
reinvigorated. Their rangers are being introduced to mapping through some
shared guidelines, but, like all individuals, they will occasionally make
mistakes or even not map as you would.

They've looked at path mapping in detail and will take on board any
comments and adjust accordingly. As you all know, there is never a perfect
set of OSM tags and the world gets messier the closer you look at it.


On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, 15:28 Nathan Case, <nathancase at outlook.com> wrote:

> Glad this has been posted. I've had the same experience:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132199331
>
> The on the ground route (via Strava Heatmap) deviates from the council's
> PRoW data. However:
>
> - 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).
>
> - 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.
>
> 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:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 12 February 2023, 14:56
> *To:* Talk Gb <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Edits being made by a National Trust GIS team
> member
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230212/68df458c/attachment.htm>