Kia ora and thank you.
I had not noticed the boundary lines.
As has been the case with other locality/suburb names I have encountered, I was looking for a point that gave the suburb name, and couldn't find one.
In a few moments after posting this I will delete my effort.
Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
Kia kaha

You have a semi-technical advantage over me.

I do not have the knowledge to find the id for an element, such as "id=722844462" in the example above.

I say again, I have not deleted allowed access tags. In the present examples I have been reverting to the standard allowed access for the highway=???. This is intended to be the same as allowed access as when a line is given "life" as in "highway=track"

1) Please demonstrate how I can find the id for an element

2) please discuss the proposal in my last message for a shared path highway type that recognises the width of 2 to 3 metres, usually paved, typically has "pedestrian priority" (or similar) signage.
I suggested a wider line and new colour recognising a sharing.

Andy, hi again
I looked at the history display with some concern, at first. That history display purports to show no access tags by several contributors.
Then I did a wee experiment.
I conclude an absence of access tags in that history display is in fact saying the standard access tags were in play for "osm.wiki/Tag:highway=..."
Kia kaha, Alan

ralley, kia ora

I was simplifying the residential areas I was working in. With so much more information, such as building outlines and street addresses some residential areas are becoming quite crowded with info.

I have now read the recent discussion (mainly 1 August 2021) and noted no consensus in the three or so posts. In fact one post found Christchurch tended towards larger areas while both large and small areas were observed in Auckland.

My impression was the weight of views was towards larger areas that followed ''natural'' boundaries.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Morena

I have read again the conversation you note above. I see the assertion there that "=designated" provides valuable information. But no discussion on where that info is used.

And I am very aware of the various paths, pavements and roads that Ara Tawa traverses. Typically, where a sign shows a bicycle it is underneath a pedestrian and is often accompanied with the text "cyclist must give way to pedestrians".

To my mind that suggests "bicycle=permissive" is to be considered.

And how to tag the roads that Ara Tawa traverses where a pavement has not been mapped?

Near Porirua Station is a largish sign starting with the words "Shared path".

And I have read the OSM Wiki on designated.

The example that caught my attention was:
"highway=path
snowmobile=designated
foot=no"

Would you please provide examples of where the valuable information is used.

I am a user (or intended user as in HRT) of most of the stuff I contribute. Both by using OSMAnd+ on an Android phone/tablet and WayMarkedTrails.org.
Both have bicycle, car and foot views. Both seem to cope well with the standard tags that Highway=Path provide.

And in the browser access to OSM contributions I am aware of two layers related to cycling.

So, please help me with what extra information provided by changing "=yes" to "=designated" and where that extra information is used.

Kia ora

PS: you may care to examine the way in which I have contributed to that part of Hutt Road from Aotea Quay overbridge to Rangiora Avenue. This is another route I often use.

Thank you.

As I say, at the time I started Highway=Path included Foot, Bicycle and Horses as designated.

The Wiki for Highway=Path (last modified 4 Feb 2021), says this is still the case.

My online search suggests the Hauraki Rail Trail typically has a name signs without indicating specific usage, or non-usage.

All of the Hauraki Rail is in rural areas where horse use can be expected.

Search as I might In the Wiki, I cannot find a for Highway=Cycle and Foot Path. A simple test indicates the designated access is Foot and Bicycle only

The most common path signage in my region is one showing a pedestrian above a bicycle. Also seen is the addition of the words Pedestrian Priority.
Accordingly, Highway=Path is the documented tag that seems most relevant, in the Hauraki at least. To insist on using Cycle and Foot Path may be showing an unconscious bias.

In your first post you added “Also, there seems to be other issues here, the tags `type=route`, `route= bicycle`, etc. should be on the relation, not the tracks themselves.”

I asked you for an example of this issue. I expected that example to be from my work. Is this still an aspect you wish to further consider?

Nga mihi

Tena koe and thanks for your comments.

When I started mapping 'cycle' was the only one for that purpose, with 'path' having a more inclusive look and feel. And I looked and studied the wiki at that time.
I noted then, as now, Path includes access for horses. As most of the Hauraki trails are in country areas ...
So this is the usage I have. So long as access is clear, is there is issue?

Not certain what your second point is. Can you please give an example.

nga mihi

these were two separate

My work is to have route relations that:
1) have all elements included in the relation, and
2) they are in a sequential order.
The tools I use include RelationAnalyzer and JOSM.
The purpose is so that tools such as WayMarkedTrails function as they are designed.

Your original message queried a contribution. I have no issue with that.

Your original message then continues, without the opportunity to have a discussion, on the assumption that your query is proven and to immediately act on your assumption.
That is not good process.

The issue is so many contributors in your neighbourhood seem to look at the displayed effect and not look at the effect of their contributions on route relations.
Which is why, when I again looked at the Cotswold Way relation following your message I found about six gaps, some short and some long.
I suggest you and your colleagues widen your reviews to include ensuring route relations are complete and in sequence.
Then, for routes that I hope to attempt on foot one of these days, my attentions will not be needed.
Have you considered why members of the English public hold English contributors up for derision.
Cheers

the explanation given at the time was:
"for Cotswold Way not an small element out of sequence and sort into sequence"
My work is based on what I see at the time.
I am not certain of your authority to:
1) ask a question; and
2) to immediately assume no response will be adequate; and
3) to immediately act on your presumption.
So, please identify and explain yourself.

I would appreciate your thoughtful consideration that assists all users, as I understand this to be the purpose of OSM.

Coming back to the section between Epsom Avenue and Gillies Avenue:
So the user knows where, and guided by the wiki, and the Q&A you referred to, I propose the names:
a) "Melville Park" for the elements from Saint Andrew's Road to Gillies Avenue;
b) "Auckland University" for the section from Epson Avenue down to Saint Andrew's Road;
there being quite a lot of signage for both these names.

Continuing the discussion:
The question still arise as to where any name comes from.
There are several signs saying Carlton Gore Road posted by Auckland Council.
I assume we can be quite safe from criticism if we name elements within that road reserve that are highways tagged as highway=cycleway and/or footpath as well as the elements tagged highway=road.
Nearby is the well signed Auckland Domain. Within this Domain there are a number of paths marked in OSM.
In my view these paths can be named Auckland Domain, unless some other name is signed for a particular element.
On the other side of the Waitematā, I have encountered roadside signs "Te Araroa". There is a name (of the 3,000 km route certainly) that can be applied where no other name already exists.
The purpose of any map is to help the user. When that user is reading a list extracted from the (electronic) map the help must continue.

CoyKoi, kia ora
My concern is not about Coast to Coast or Te Araroa or any (walking) route.

Rather my concern is that, so far as possible each element in any route is named. My concern springs from the directions that comes from apps.
For example, when driving, you might be perplexed if the instruction came up "turn left onto 'highway' " rather than "turn left onto Khyber Pass Road".
The former is quite common in walking and cycling route instructions where the element is for the footpath making up, say, Kyber Pass Road, and that footpath has not been named.
I have thoughtfully read the post you have put forward. The responder, with a generalisation, concludes "Obviously it can sometimes get confusing - sometimes the "name of a road or path" really is the same as the name of the long-distance path that runs along it (and I bet that there are parts of the Ridgeway LDP where people would say "that path there is named The Ridgeway") but more often than not, and especially with newer LDPs, it isn't."
The discussion in the wiki on "Names" is a bit more helpful.
There I accept the points made about descriptions.
I accept the moderately made observation that my original "name" was crying out for suggestions as to how to name this 100 metres or so.

Kia ora
Since my post above I have found two more signs for the Coast to Coast Walkway in the driveway beyond the northern end of Saint Andrews Road.
These are official signs and, in my view comply with the wiki in respect of name giving.

I could not see any other identifying signs.

I continue to be ready to have a moderate discussion about how the advice in the wiki applies.

Kia kaha

Kia ora

I think there is a need to look very carefully at each and every instance.

I am a long distance walker and names of highways came up in route lists.

Names of highways tie back to online tools. such as WayMarkedTrails and OSMand.

Where a highway doesn't have a name the name "highway" is instead. This is not helpful to users.

On the Auckland's north shore, for example, many street signs point the way for Te Araroa.

I invite you to consider the example I gave, where cycleway was added, in OSM, to a street name. I have removed that descriptive addition along the lines mentioned by others above.

On the Gillies Avenue, there is sign for "Coast to Coast" point west. I would argue that signs has currency to Saint Andres Avenue, at the least.

Some mappers take an extreme view that says a (foot)path that is physically alongside and forms part of a road cannot take the name of the road.

So, in my view:
1) each instance need to be examined either on the ground or from mapillary or similar
2) there is the need for us all to have an agreed position on all of these aspects drawn from the OSM wiki

I think, @myfanwy, you should identify yourself and your role in OSM.

Be very happy to continue a moderate discussion.

nga mihi

You may not revert unilaterally.
The pavements etc are part of the road or other feature they are part of.
Please advise where in the wiki your view understanding be found.
Then we can discuss.

@CoyKoi, I fully understand the point you are trying to make.
The bigger question what motivates whoever to name a highway?
And what signage is sufficient to constitute a name?
And a bigger picture here is where any of this fits into giving users directions.
In this case the various bits between Epsom Ave and Gillies Ave are part of Te Araoa, a 3,000 km route from Cape Reinga to The Bluff. Having walked Te Araroa through Auckland in April 2019, I had great difficulty wayfinding.
But to be consistent have you considered the name given to the cycle way either side of Carlton Gore Road east from Park Road . I can see signage for a cycle way. I could not see and name given to the path itself. As it is already tagged as a cycle way the addition of Cycleway is possibly redundant. To use your explanation "if it has a name ... " and in this case the name is simply "Carlton Gore Road".
You may also want to consider whether the mapping adequately reflects what is on the ground.
Kia ora

Mike, I've used some spare time that has become available to clear my desk.
And I found my hard copy of the Augustine Camino Walking Guide.
The guide says it uses maps from the OS 1:25000 series. And, like maps of the same area at the same scale, details are different.
The pages are not numbered: the relevant page in that guide is about three or four after the centre,
The path traced on that map does not relate to the GPX file, at the level of detail shown.
Iv'e also looked at FootPathMaps.com. This uses OS maps and shows public paths at certain levels of detail. That was unhelpful also.
I write as I note you have not yet made the changes you mentioned to me.
Please be assured, OSM being the work of many contributors, I do feel any sense of "ownership" of the work I have done.

I did walk the NDW route in August 2016. Looking at it afresh I would now most probably, having crossed over the A2 continue ahead and, depending on the time of day, enjoy some refreshments in an appropriate establishment before making the final strike towards the Cathedral.

As Her Majesty wrote to me and my compatriots earlier this week, kia kaha, kia maia, kia manawanui (be strong, confident and patient).

Alan

Mike, thanks for your enquiry.

I became aware of this route in mid 2019 and purchased the guidebook.

And I had it on my list to walk when in this part of the UK in mid 2020. I use an Android app on my tablet for all my walks, no matter where in the world, and so need them mapped before setting out.

In December 2019 I downloaded the GPX file and my mapping of the route followed that source.

I have gone back to that material and find, in this locality I have faithfully followed the GPX trace: that is along "The Mint".

All I can suggest if you have more recent or local knowledge that you make changes as you see fit.

All I ask is that you ensure the end result is contiguous so that, when displayed in the OSM referred tool WayMarkedTrails, the elevation profile is displayed.

Take care at this time.

Alan

GinaroZ, hello and apologies for this brief delay in replying.

I am always content to have a discussion with you on this and any other matters.

I try to base my practices on the OSM wiki, and believe I have so on this occassion.

But before continuing this discussion, it would be courteous if you could identify your interest in this matter.

I trust you are yours are well at this time.