The trail is rendered as a separate footpath which is not connected to the roads that it follows. In one spot it also renders as a non-existent footbridge next to the road ( OpenStreetMap ). Walking directions in the same area suggests unnecessarily crossing under the bridge via the canal and rejoining the road ( OpenStreetMap ). Strange routes are also suggested in other areas this trail passes through.
What is the best way to deal with this? I assume the Heritage trail is allowed on the map and therefore shouldn’t just be deleted, but it is causing problems in its current state.
Given that the linked leaflet (in the relation: B4811 Rowley Regis walks AW) doesn’t actually show the route, then I am not sure this is an accurate assumption. I’d want to see the route set out somewhere or for there to be markers along the route.
More broadly, this is a case of someone trying to add micro detail to the map (in this case pavements) and not realising the impact it can have. In the case of your last link (the routing issue) this is because they have not connected the footpath to the north side of the road except from at Waterfall Lane Trading Estate road but this is tagged as private so the router doesn’t select that.
I’m not a fan of micro mapping pavements along a road, so if only down to me, I’d delete. But suspect others will disagree.
I think that Rob is exactly right here. There have been a few recent mega-threads about this sort of mapping, such as this one. Those tend to have been prompted by people editing an area that they are unfamiliar with remotely, but this mapper I believe is local (although sometimes other mappers need to do a bit of tidying up afterwards).
The challenge with “separate sidewalk mapping” is that if done only 90% completely, the result could be worse than what was there before.
The options are basically “fix forward” (map all the driveways all the kerbs, all the crossings etc.) or remove the separate sidewalks and add sidewalk=both (or whatever is appropriate) to the road.
If it was me, I’d do the former if lots of crossing, driveway etc. info was already added and only some was missing and the latter if only some or none had. I suspect here that the latter case will apply and removing separate sidewalks would not result in information loss**.
The relation (assuming it is signed and should be in OSM) can be added to whatever infrastructure is mapped.
** Elsewhere and with a different mapper that might not be the case - over the weekend near me I’ve completed numerous separate sidewalks by gathering details of driveways etc. - whether separate sidewalks make sense depends on the area.
The more I look at the PDF in the relation, to the one on the map, the more confused I get. They go down completely different routes and roads that are suggested in the PDF. The PDF isn’t a full overview by any means but gives enough of a base, but doesn’t appear to follow that.
I had some long-standing issues with this mapper, who retagged extensive parts of the Midlands canal towpath network and managed to entirely break bike routing as a result. He never responded to any changeset comments. Given that the route is unsigned and there are evident problems with the mapping quality, I would suggest just reverting the changeset.
I’ve had a look to see if I can find any other sources for the route. I haven’t been able to find anything except the linked leaflet, other sites using osm data and amusingly this thread.
I did learn that the leaflet was available from the Sandwell website in 2009 ( Rowley Regis Heritage Trail ) but it no longer appears to be there. No route was provided on the website either, just descriptions of the landmarks.
In addition, the wording of the leaflet suggests that the trail consists of 2 distinct routes:
The sites and buildings are spread over a large area. Each of the two routes is long and strenuous. Careful planning will be necessary before walking the routes.
So it seems the mapper has decided to connect these together with a lengthy middle section which isn’t described anywhere.
Having looked round the area a bit there doesn’t seem to be much sidewalk mapping with either approach here. I added some sidewalk tags a few years ago with Street Complete (which are now conflicting with the heritage trail), and there are a couple of isolated areas where separate sidewalks were mapped nearby. Which would be the best approach to stick with here?
Is reverting the changeset (or 2 changesets from the looks of it) safe to do? The route covers a large area and I’m concerned reverting it would break things.
To summarise, it sounds like this route (as added) just isn’t correct. With a Data Working Group** hat on, I’d normally suggest “trying to contact the mapper via changeset discussion comments, so that they know what the problem is”. It’s still worth doing that here I think, although @Richard is correct that they don’t always reply. I think it’s worth mentioning because as far as I can see “trail not matching reality” isn’t a problem that has been brought up before.
However, a number of problems (such as disconnected footpaths) have been brought up before. I’ve tended to just fix stuff where I can (I’m not local, but can fill in obvious gaps where I spot them). I don’t think that there’s any malice here, just not always terribly good mapping. For example, the main article for “separate sidewalk mapping” is apparently here, but “explain like I’m 5” it is not.
Given that it was added 9 months ago it’s likely that any revert wouldn’t be clean and would need some patching up afterwards. If you (or someone) was to do the revert with Josm it’d take you through the conflicts interactively, but easier I suspect might be to just undo the separate sidewalks manually and then tidy up the remains of the relation afterwards. Some bits of sidewalk shortcut look like they should stay (e.g. here) - that’s easiest to do manually rather than patching up after a revert.
If you’d like the DWG to help drop an email to data@openstreetmap.org and reference this forum topic - but I would try commenting on a changeset first.
** who get involved to sort out issues like this if they can’t be sorted out between mappers or by other mappers.