@ndm, I looked at your issue a day or two later.
In looking at the detail I think I can see where I "went wrong". To the east of Welsh Back, in what was quite a complex set of paths crossing one another and I had not noticed they related to physically separate ways. I hope you have looked at this very small segment and are now content.

A separate issue is to the east of Bristol Bridge and above Floating Harbour. The way here appears from the signage to be a shared path. And the available imagery shows many on foot and none on a bicycle, although a small number are parked, including several for hire.
Accordingly this way is more appropriately marked, in accordance with the wiki, as "=path". I would appreciate your observations.

Richard.
I use WayMarkedTrails.org and that normally gets eveything in order. But there was one route relation that not even josm's sort function would resolve. So did this manually so as to use all the features that 'Trails' offers.

I understand the principle you refer to, but within the bounds offered by relevant OSM wiki. One such is on naming things.

But here is the thing.

About 10 or so years ago and earlier there was a tag "highway=cycle and foot way" and its colour was blue. It was clear to me that this tag was meant to be inclusive of both means of getting about. Some route elements still have that tag. See Thames Path just west of the confluence of the Kennet with the Thames.

Then, about 10 years ago that (joint) tag was removed and replaced by "=footway", "=cycleway" and "=path".

In the current wiki it is only "=footway" that has the admonition to apply when the use is "mainly or exclusively" for walking. I think that admonition should apply to "=cycleway" also

What I suspect (guess) has happened (knowing human nature about change) is that some mappers have continued to use "cycleway" instead of "=path" as I believe was intended.

I have that belief as when saving additions to the OSM database recently I was asked to change "=cycle and foot way" tags that were proximate to my additions to ="path .

I have attempted to find the time line for these changes, without success. As I say based on that experience and what I can see and based on my understanding of human nature (I have had to introduce so much of it in my professional career) I come to these preliminary conclusions. It may be helpful in someone can give an authoritative chronology, but that may just be a rabbit hole.

I am happy to enter into a open discussion. But where the response is simply "that (cycleway) is just how we do it in the UK, then no thank you.

I am indebted to your information the focus of many cycle route mappers have a primary focus on that means of getting about. That may explain many of what I see as "funny" instances. For example: where a perfectly adequate suburban sidewalk without any signage about shared use is tagged as "=cycleway". I have no difficulty with the sidewalk elements being included in a cycling route relation (if that is actually appropriate) so it can be properly rendered in, say, cycling,waymarkedtrails.org. But it seems to me tagging a not very wide sidewalk as something else, I thinks, suggests a step too far.

I would be pleased to continue the discussion.

Richard, I have looked at the point that Phil (@trigpoint) makes. It seems his point has been corrected. But there are still many pre-existing discontinuities in the ordering of the elements elsewhere in this route.
kind regards, Alan

Phil, thank you and an important point part of my continuing learning.
I know I checked that the NCR4 relation was still present.
I have just now also looked at all the elements of NCR4 middle section Newbury to Severn Bridge and, at first blush, there are quite a number of discontinuities.
It was the around 12 discontinuities that got me started on the elements making up the route relation for K&A towpath.
Kind regards, Alan

Andy, hi and thank you for considered and considerate mention.

As a result of your mentions I have had another more detailed look at the last several kilometres within Reading: from Bridge Street to Thames River.

When first here, I encountered the name “Kennet Side cycle way” on sections that were not streets, to which I made the addition you note above.

My more detailed look shows much signage for a shared path (a rondel with a bicycle above a child holding the hand of an older person). Accordingly, I have deleted any name on sections between London Street and Sidmouth Street and “Kennet Side” from there to Thames River. I would appreciate your review.

I have also looked at the "atownsend" site and see the point you make. That site seems to apply only in the UK and Ireland. My long-distance walking takes me well beyond that area so I need a different solution. I carry an Android tablet with the relevant app being OSMAnd+: this works off-line. From experience I prefer to have the name of a recognised route at regular intervals when no other name is relevant, especially away from built up areas. I can expand on that point if you wish.

I have read the wiki section Name is the name only you refer to above. I take some refuge in the later part of the last paragraph starting “… however most names were invented at some point … “ and assert the many local users I have seen online will know it locally as the “canal tow path” or similar but may not know the name of the canal itself.
An analogy for my irregular usage is putting the names of train lines on the OSM website. For example, Great Western Main Line or South Wales Main Line. When at Paddington Station I do not recall signage for those names

Kind regards, Alan

PS: My current detailed interest in the K&A arises from an intention to walk from Avonmouth to Woolwich in 2020 (after making more progress / completing Via Francigena – Canterbury to Rome - started in 2018 !!!)

@trigpoint
I've had other stuff these past two days.
Thank you for your observations and you raise some interesting points for discussion. Rather than attempt to answer all at once I've made a first selection, so, with a slight alteration in sequence, here goes:
1) o) These changes are a bit out of step with the consensus of the UK community.
1) r) I believe my tags follow OSM documentation. And thus understood by readers wherever they live.
2) o) Highway=path is a bit of a late comer in OSM terms and is rarely used in the UK.
2 r) In my recent work I encountered the tag "Highway=Cycle and Foot Way" with a blue line when rendered. On saving my work OSM said these were redundant and should be replaced with "Highway=Path".

The practice of local territorial authorities where I live (city councils, for example) create shared paths in urban and rural settings and / or allow bicyles on certain footpaths. Some of these may be designated by a cycling club as a cycle route and maintain sihns (like the National Trail signs, but with a bike rather than an acorn). They are still shared paths and official signage is a walker above a bike. Often there is text below saying "Pedestrian Priority" and less often "Cyclists must give way".
It is clear to me, reading "official" web sites that the intention for ways such as Kennet and Avon Canal tow path is a shared path. To tag them 'cycleway' seems to not only an appropriation and, to an international reader, saying do not go here.
I would appreciate your observations. But to rely on UK customary use is not helpful. I can elaborate why I have that viewpoint in a latter discussion.
Phil, over to you.
Kind regards

@ndm, thank you. I will look at that directly.
I was also aware of the cycle and foot lanes physically marked on the Redcliffe Bascule Bridge.

I am still curious as to your interest in these matters.

kind regards

@trigpoint, thank you. I am aware of the various levels at wich OSM works.

To my mind the first level is what you see when using a browser. My expectation an element displayed in blue is mainly or exclusively for bicycle access.

The difficulty arises when distinguishing between 'footway / footpath' and 'path' as those are both displayed in red.

Your reference to access is the second level, to my way of thinking and comes into play with apps (PC, Android, iOS etc) using OSM as the source. The OSM browser page picks up on that with a 'Cycle Map' display.

And, in addition, would you kindly indentify the location of the elements you believe should revert to cycle path. Supported with documentation, if any, from the Bristol City Council showing these ways are to be exclusively used as cycle ways.

with kind regards

ndn, thank you.

I could have asked you the same question, that you appear to have made assumptions.

If you would be so kind as to answer my question that followed my response to your initial query, then I think we can proceed on the basis we both have the best interest of all users at heart.

again, kind regards

@ndm , thank you for your observation.

My understanding includes these considerations:

* all my tags in Bristol are for ways accessible by the public without let or hindrance
* these ways are tagged for those on foot, such as River Avon Trail

If you can give me a list of my tags that are for ways provided exclusively for cycling I will be happy to do as you suggest.

It is my understanding the tag *path is neutral in its application.

When making changes I do my best to preserve pre-existing relations and routes, whether bus, cycling, walking, whatever.

kind regards

replace "varying" with "multiple"

Where a way has multiple uses a tag that avoids "ownership" is to be preferred.

DaveF, kia ora

From the OSM highway wiki:
Footway ... Should not be used for paths where the primary or intended usage is unknown.
From the Rivers and Canals Trust website I note, with respect to K&A:
Today, thousands of visitors enjoy boating, walking and cycling along the peaceful towpaths of the Kennet & Avon Canal.
And in times past horses did the towing.

And cyclists use significant lengths of K&A for their National Cycle Route 4.

A tag indicating "mainly/exclusively for pedestrians seems highly inappropriate

In the wiki I consulted (osm.wiki/Map_Features#Highway)

I do not see any deprecation of "path" there.

Where a path has varying users a tag that avoids "ownership" is to be preferred.

My question to you: what is your interest in these tags?

Kia kaha

DaveF, kia ora (greetings

Thank you for your enquiry.
I suspect that we might have a different understanding of what is appropriate.

I have done more work today, principally to add the name "Kennet and Avon Canal towpath" to all relevant elements. In doing that I noted many route tags. Some, such as "Cycle & Foot path" appear to be deprecated. In other cases the tag "foot path" was applied even though those elements were also used by one or more cycle routes.

Please, for my education, explain the basis of your enquiry.

Kia kaha (take care, be strong)

ndm, thank you and not clear what you are asking.

Mike, I believe I have completed this task.

As I understand the route preferred by others, in part, used busy A road with no shoulders I have not mapped section from Grivan to Barhill.

WayMarkeTrails.org was very helpful for the overview.

Can you please review what i have done and offer comments as you see fit.

Alan

Mike, thank you for this prompt.
I had noticed route relations some time ago and could not see how to get started.
A few hours ago I completed creating and adding a route relationship for the route from Paisley Abbey to Bruce Statute Square, Ayr
Earlier in July I had changed the feature of many sections that were designated for both cyclists and pedestrians from "Cycle Path" to "Path" with the note these were shared use. A few days later there was push back from a contributor. I replied that, from my experience last November, these were shared paths. In an attempt to calm the waters and where there was a existing name of "NCR x" for a segment, I added "- Whithorn Way" to reinforce the shared nature of the path. And it was that experience that led to me to adding "(Whithorn Way") to the sections you have identified.
In the next few days I hope to complete this work from Ayr to Whithorn, deleting the names I have added and adding a route relationship.
Once again, thank you for your observations.
Kia kaha (take care, be strong)
Alan

PS: I also changed not a few sections where the description was "Footpath" and also had an NCR 7 relationship to "Path".

In other words the desire was to achieve consistency in first appearance for all readers / users.

GinaroZ, greetings

I have walked much of NCR 7 from Lochwinnoch to Ayr. And encountered many other walkers and a handful of cyclists over that four days.

I did so at the suggestion of the promoters of The Whithorn Way from Saint Mungos to Whithorn.

It was and continues to be my understanding that, unless specifically marked as "Cycles Only" that these are "Shared Ways" to be used other than by motorised vehicles. And many of the usages before my changes explicitly included "Foot = yes".

In numerous section approaching Ayr it was quite clear that NCR 7 was also designated Ayr Coastal Way.

The name on NCR 7 continues and no relationships were changed.

The line added is to recognise a pathway does exist between Albatross Close and the existing pathway in front of the club room leading to Samwell Drive