In short: the usage I used some two years is appropriate and follows normal guidance for walking on roads that do not have build paths etc.
Best wishes

Thank you. I had wondered if that was the part of the way that you had in mind when starting your comment.
First up: the route is not mine but has been created by a wide community. Here is a link to a very large guide to this route.
http://www.caminomozarabedesantiago.es/documentos/guia-eng.pdf
At page 82 the map shows the route arriving from the east (to pass through Trujillanos and exit from Calle Juan Carlos I) and pass over the N-V (or N5) in the south west corner.
(The map is not helpful in that north is down, east is on the left and west on the right)
Street level imagery from Calle Juan ... at best shows a shoulder divided from the motor carriageway by a solid painted. This shoulder cannot be described as a sidewalk, footpath, cycleway or path. It is part of the road. This is in keeping with all the roads in Trujillanos itself. Nothing is marked as a sidewalk etc although it is clear those within the town use those roads as footpaths etc.
Looking at street level images: I cannot see signage prohibiting the use of N-V by those on foot, bicycle or horseback.
Your concerns exists not only at the small section you have highlighted. Elsewhere along the Camino Mozarabe the route is along roads. In the vicinity between Yelbes and Terrefresneda the Camino Mozarabde uses the shoulder on the N-430, to name but one.

Gidday, several considerations:

I have traversed the section from Yelbes to Merida that is the subject of your reference and cannot see a road that has a sidewalk mapped. I have also followed street level images and cannot see a road with an adjoining sidewalk/footpath or similar. I have obviously missed something. Would you kindly direct me to the section of road you are referring to.

The basic rule, recognizing that walking existed long before horses and horseless carriages (motor cars) etc, is that walkers can use roads, unless expressly prohibited by the relevant controlling authority. So, saying that foot=yes is quite standard, whether or not a separate path has been mapped alongside the road.

In this case a focus for me was mapping the route Camino Mozárabe from Granada to Merida. And to make sense, the route has to be continuous.

Looking forward to you detail as the precise places where you think I erred two years ago.

Best wishes

Kia ora, that would be most helpful. My skills extend to doing one field each section one at a time.
From the newspaper reports I understand it opens tomorrow, 31 March.
For one segment I have added a more detailed note saying.

One thing that needs to be resolved is how to display the Te Reo name when rendered. Even though Name=is entered in Te Reo, the name as rendered is the Multilingual name in English.
Nga mihi

Please be more specific. Please give examples of "not every section is on highway."

I have followed the sections that already had both "Transmission ..." and "Te Aranui ..." in place.

Elliott, thank you for your observations
Context
The California Mission Trail (CMT) is about 900 miles (1,400 km). It links 21 historic mission stations ranging from San Diego in the south to Sonoma (around 40 km north of San Francisco). It is about 60 days of walking.
It is my understanding that the only signage is at the 21 mission stations and this is not about the route.
The generality of the route is well canvassed in printed publications and can also be found at MissionWalk.org
I am not aware of any proposal to sign this route.
In my experience the “signage” and description (including KML or GPX files) of many routes are now found in hard or soft publications (books and web sites) and not along the route. A good example in my experience in 2018 is Via Francigena in France. Over 600 km I found one marker a few hours after leaving Rheims and never found another.
My route marking for CMT is very much a work in progress. I hope to walk it starting in 2024.
Route mapping considerations
There is a discussion in the wiki about how many elements should be in each route as mapped. Last time I looked the suggested upper limit was 400. The reasoning, as I recall, was the ease/difficulty of maintenance.
Naming the sections
The wiki on mapping routes suggested using the various tools in WayMarkedTrails.org to see the results of routes used by individuals. See the results when a taxonomy is not used organization
I was very keen to avoid the, for me, very unhelpful references and names for sections of the American Discovery Trail (relation/1544944)
Rather I seek to follow the style used for sections of the Empire State Trail (EST, relation/11682611). Even in this route signage at significant points is not present. I refer to the junction of Cannon Street and Veteran Memorial Avenue, Cohoes, New York State. Here one section ends, and two major alternative sections start. StreetView (image capture 2019) shows the only signage as being for road names and truck directions and nothing for EST.
Looking ahead
I agree the name you note is a mouthful and is work in progress.
And I am considering having only 20 sections, one for the route between one mission station and the next. Focussing on a nominal days march is an arbitrary division.
Subject to the nominal 400 element limit, I have contemplated naming each section “CMT xx Mission x to Mission Y”. Thus users of WayMarkedTrails get some value and not a less helpful reference.
I would appreciate your comments on how to create meaningful names that can be sourced from the literature and which indicated a normal sequence.

Alan

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