Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I add road names to paths that are part of a route. Thus the name gets onto route lists.
In this case I overlooked breaking the path where there was a change of name. I was working backwards.
Resolved, I hope, a few moments ago. Alwyn

Quite correct it is wrong.
The intention was to help me visually locate small elements that did not reflect an apparent reality from the aerial imagery at the time.
There were two generic issues.

Spots marked as "scrub" where the now (2020) visible vegetation was not dissimilar from the surrounding area.

Rivers that had been marked with numerous shingle islands where the 2020 imagery showed quite a different picture and where the underlying reality (based on my experience) was areas with shingle effectively from bank to bank with the river itself adjusting on a regular basis (not unlike a braided river).

In this specific spot I have removed the service road, highlighted by the curls ate each end and adjusted the shingle extent (in many cases to exclude what was shingle flats now with embryonic vegetation)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention

Gidday
Have you had a further look at the use of S James Way that concerned you?

I have now completed mapping the route to Southampton and noted signage in various places.

The source for this version of S James Way is maps prepared by British Pilgrimage Trust and trip notes from others.

The bicycle access for that small segment has been restored - accidental removal.

I appreciate any other observations you have that could be used to help improve this route.

2021 08 01 @ 20h34 [email protected]
[Talk-nz] Format of land use areas. Trace around all roads or just the main drags?
Hey all,
After making updates to the Jville/Newlands/Tawa/Welly area over the past couple weeks. I’ve wondered what opinions there are on drawing out land use areas like residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
Wellington seems to follow the pattern of tracing around every single road. While Christchurch seems to have things done as large blocks with major roads being the borders. And I found both in Auckland.
So what do people think/prefer? Avoid any road overlap or only avoid major roads? Or even just ignore roads entirely?
My personal view is either to either stop at the main roads or just ignore the roads when laying out the areas. The roads are already are labelled as being primary, secondary, and tertiary. So it’s pretty clear when they’re acting as a border. Also for many of the major roads they’re going to create their own border by being an area of primarily commercial land use. Meanwhile trying to trace around every single road adds a lot of overhead of not only updating road alignments but then a way on either side that needs updating. Then are you including the footpath and berm as part of the area or do you say that’s council owned so not included?
Cheers, James.
2021 08 01 @ 21h34 [email protected]
Hi James,
I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me. If it's a wider than usual gap between areas, perhaps it merits separated areas though.
In the situations where it does border features like roads and parks etc. for existing ones, I tend to tidy it up for aesthetic purposes so that it goes along the approximate fence line of the property and excludes the kerb, as the footpath and kerb area aren't really part of the 'residential' area. When rendered in the OSM tiles it makes more sense that way as it is parallel to the road feature.
Cheers, Andrew
2021 08 01 @ 21h43 [email protected]
> Hi James,
> I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me.
yes, for residential areas, with what we'd call "residential roads", I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use. If somebody wants to come in and do all the crinkly edges, they are welcome to...
 
Here is the discussion on 1 August 2021, extracted from TALK-NZ
2021 08 01 @ 20h34 [email protected]
[Talk-nz] Format of land use areas. Trace around all roads or just the main drags?
Hey all,
After making updates to the Jville/Newlands/Tawa/Welly area over the past couple weeks. I’ve wondered what opinions there are on drawing out land use areas like residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
Wellington seems to follow the pattern of tracing around every single road. While Christchurch seems to have things done as large blocks with major roads being the borders. And I found both in Auckland.
So what do people think/prefer? Avoid any road overlap or only avoid major roads? Or even just ignore roads entirely?
My personal view is either to either stop at the main roads or just ignore the roads when laying out the areas. The roads are already are labelled as being primary, secondary, and tertiary. So it’s pretty clear when they’re acting as a border. Also for many of the major roads they’re going to create their own border by being an area of primarily commercial land use. Meanwhile trying to trace around every single road adds a lot of overhead of not only updating road alignments but then a way on either side that needs updating. Then are you including the footpath and berm as part of the area or do you say that’s council owned so not included?
Cheers, James.
2021 08 01 @ 21h34 [email protected]
Hi James,
I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me. If it's a wider than usual gap between areas, perhaps it merits separated areas though.
In the situations where it does border features like roads and parks etc. for existing ones, I tend to tidy it up for aesthetic purposes so that it goes along the approximate fence line of the property and excludes the kerb, as the footpath and kerb area aren't really part of the 'residential' area. When rendered in the OSM tiles it makes more sense that way as it is parallel to the road feature.
Cheers, Andrew
2021 08 01 @ 21h43 [email protected]
> Hi James,
> I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me.
yes, for residential areas, with what we'd call "residential roads", I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use. If somebody wants to come in and do all the crinkly edges, they are welcome to...

*** end of TALK-NZ emails ***

My comments.
As far as I can see, the words from Eliot "I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use." has not been picked up since then.

The big question is how is the detail that some seek ("do all the crinkly edges") help any user.
In OSM browsers that detail is usually not seen at level 15 downwards. The apps that I use do not render the “crinkly edges” detail.

So, seeing Eliot as the last word in the forum, all of the built-up area Grenada Village south from Grenada Drive would be marked residential area.

I noted the partial reversion in Grenada Village shows residential area “crinkly” lines drawn through building outlines. As such, the original (or the remapping) was not “precisely mapped”.

With bus stops and residential addresses and building outlines now being added, marking the "crinkly bits" becomes harder.

I will be pleased to continue the discussion in a outcome focused manner.

Kia kaha

My apologies, I attempted to edit and ended up doubling up.
Please ignore the long message above. I will resubmit the final version

2021 08 01 @ 20h34 [email protected]
[Talk-nz] Format of land use areas. Trace around all roads or just the main drags?
Hey all,
After making updates to the Jville/Newlands/Tawa/Welly area over the past couple weeks. I’ve wondered what opinions there are on drawing out land use areas like residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
Wellington seems to follow the pattern of tracing around every single road. While Christchurch seems to have things done as large blocks with major roads being the borders. And I found both in Auckland.
So what do people think/prefer? Avoid any road overlap or only avoid major roads? Or even just ignore roads entirely?
My personal view is either to either stop at the main roads or just ignore the roads when laying out the areas. The roads are already are labelled as being primary, secondary, and tertiary. So it’s pretty clear when they’re acting as a border. Also for many of the major roads they’re going to create their own border by being an area of primarily commercial land use. Meanwhile trying to trace around every single road adds a lot of overhead of not only updating road alignments but then a way on either side that needs updating. Then are you including the footpath and berm as part of the area or do you say that’s council owned so not included?
Cheers, James.

2021 08 01 @ 21h34 [email protected]
Hi James,
I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me. If it's a wider than usual gap between areas, perhaps it merits separated areas though.
In the situations where it does border features like roads and parks etc. for existing ones, I tend to tidy it up for aesthetic purposes so that it goes along the approximate fence line of the property and excludes the kerb, as the footpath and kerb area aren't really part of the 'residential' area. When rendered in the OSM tiles it makes more sense that way as it is parallel to the road feature.
Cheers, Andrew

2021 08 01 @ 21h43 [email protected]
> Hi James,
> I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me.
yes, for residential areas, with what we'd call "residential roads", I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use. If somebody wants to come in and do all the crinkly edges, they are welcome to...
 
Here is the discussion on 1 August 2021, extracted from TALK-NZ
2021 08 01 @ 20h34 [email protected]
[Talk-nz] Format of land use areas. Trace around all roads or just the main drags?
Hey all,
After making updates to the Jville/Newlands/Tawa/Welly area over the past couple weeks. I’ve wondered what opinions there are on drawing out land use areas like residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
Wellington seems to follow the pattern of tracing around every single road. While Christchurch seems to have things done as large blocks with major roads being the borders. And I found both in Auckland.
So what do people think/prefer? Avoid any road overlap or only avoid major roads? Or even just ignore roads entirely?
My personal view is either to either stop at the main roads or just ignore the roads when laying out the areas. The roads are already are labelled as being primary, secondary, and tertiary. So it’s pretty clear when they’re acting as a border. Also for many of the major roads they’re going to create their own border by being an area of primarily commercial land use. Meanwhile trying to trace around every single road adds a lot of overhead of not only updating road alignments but then a way on either side that needs updating. Then are you including the footpath and berm as part of the area or do you say that’s council owned so not included?
Cheers, James.

2021 08 01 @ 21h34 [email protected]
Hi James,
I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me. If it's a wider than usual gap between areas, perhaps it merits separated areas though.
In the situations where it does border features like roads and parks etc. for existing ones, I tend to tidy it up for aesthetic purposes so that it goes along the approximate fence line of the property and excludes the kerb, as the footpath and kerb area aren't really part of the 'residential' area. When rendered in the OSM tiles it makes more sense that way as it is parallel to the road feature.
Cheers, Andrew

2021 08 01 @ 21h43 [email protected]
> Hi James,
> I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me.
yes, for residential areas, with what we'd call "residential roads", I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use. If somebody wants to come in and do all the crinkly edges, they are welcome to...

As far as I can see, the words from Eliot "I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use." has not been picked up since then.
The big question is how is the detail that some seek ("do all the crinkly edges") help any user.
In OSM browsers that detail is usually not seen at level 15 downwards.
The apps that I use do not render the “crinkly edges” detail.
So, seeing Eliot as the last word in the forum, all of the built-up area Grenada Village south from Grenada Drive would be marked residential area.
I noted the partial reversion in Grenada Village shows residential area “crinkly” lines drawn through building outlines. As such, the original (or the remapping) was not “precisely mapped”.
With bus stops and residential addresses and building outlines now being added, marking the "crinkly bits" becomes harder.
I will be pleased to continue the discussion in a outcome focused manner.

Kia kaha

My edits for residential areas are in accordance with a discussion on NZ-Talk a year or so ago.
Be pleased to discuss further.
Nga Mihi

My apologies for tardiness in my reply.

The definition for "track" includes something that can take a four wheeled vehicle. This is not all four wheeled vehicles, but those suited for the needs.
I am quite familiar with these tracks and have, very occassionlly, seen four wheeled vehicles on most of them.
The tracks run alongside railway lines or parks or stream with limited, if any, other access.
Typically there is a bollard restricting vehicle access, but removable when required.
In general terms, tracks are no different to roads where vehicles, cyclists, horses with riders and walkers are given access.
Looking at the definition of path does not exclude these tracks but seems to be more focused on ways not associated with motor vehicles.

So, in my mind, the key question between track and path is can a vehicle access them as required.

As to access. The required form of yes, designated etc can be applied to highway=track in the same was as other highway= forms, as has become customary so there is no effect on Map Layers such as "CyclOSM" and "Cycle Map"

I appreciate your question.

There are two issues on the go.
I propose we work through them one at a time. As the vehicle access tagging issue seems to be simpler, I propose we work at that one first.

Vehicle access tagging

The section from Siberia down to Cross Creek Yard is a track (wide enough for a train back in the day, and now four wheeled vehicles) the only matter to consider is what access vehicles have.
There is a highway=track from Cross Creek car park across private farm land to Cross Creek Yard. As might be expected, this is marked as access=private. And no doubt this is how DoC, as land owner, gains access to the publicly available Rail Trail for whatever maintenance or works they wish to carry out from Siberia down.

I don't think it is for us to speculate how DoC manage the Rail Trail and what types of vehicles they use, when needed.

As Vehicle=yes (open to all) or = no (open to no one) seems inappropriate. This 5 km not open to all and nor, as far as we can tell, is it closed to all.

The choice seems to be one of permit or private.

I cannot easily find Wiki descriptions for others in the pop-up list for vehicle access. You may have better luck.

Which of those two do you suggest?

Thank you
I suspect the purpose of having to request access is to, amongst other considerations, to ensure the requestor meets relevant conditions. When that occurs, the permits is routinely granted..
In this case being an accredited user of the rifle range about 500 metres from Kaitoke car park would result in a permission (and key) being routinely granted.

Vehicle=yes is not an option.

The other practical (documented) option is to tag: vehicle=private.

I was loathe to do that as I did not know how that might affect other uses of this Trail within OSM.

Your thoughts

best wishes

Having read back my latest post, I can see some might see it as not temperate.

I would appreciate your explanation, supported by references to the help Wiki, as to why marking cycle or foot=designated assists routing for both walkers and cyclists. Especially, as it the case here the residential and service roads along the route do not appear to have any access marked as "designated"

I ask as, having created and maintained many route relations and not used the "designated" tag, these routes seem fine many years later.

Best wishes

With great respect, you do not have ownership of the Remutaka Rail Trail.
You should not alter my principled edits without prior discussion and agreeing how to move forward.

Please revert any changes you have made today to this route.

As offered before, please raise a discussion on Talk NZ

best regards

Thank you for your comments.
You will note that vehicles is tagged =Permit.
On all my recent trips I have observed several vehicles along the upper reaches of the rail trail. Users included Hutt Valley High School and private users accessing the shooting range.

If you consider the description of "Track" in the Wiki you will see that tag is appropriate.

Tagging as "designated" does not affect route relations. Any signage is simply describing who has access.
Designated was not previously applied to the track from the Maymorn car park nor to the service roads near Tunnel Gully.
This lack of "designated" does not seem to affect routing. Routing is determined by the application of a route, regardless of the highway type.

Please do not adjust my edits. They are principled.

Please discuss principles more widely at Talk NZ if you wish.

best regards

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