Jon, again thanks for your observations.
This area was particularly difficult to modify with the web editor not permitting me to separate existing elements.
The biggest changes, to my mind, were to the crossing of the eastern slip side of Chobham Road. My examination was that there were no differences in the pedestrian crossing at that point.
To help me understand the issue you raise please detail the issues point by point showing what is correct and how each element should be marked.
Looking forward to working with you to resolve this matter.
Best wishes, Alan

Jon, thank you for your comments.
I am responding to each of your comments in turn.
In Q2 2020 I intend to walk from the train station in Basingstoke to Twickenham. My hope is to include this canal, the Wey Navigation and Thames Path.
I also use WayMarkedTrails.org as my online tool. Using that tool, I looked at the elevation profile and noted a heavily fractured route (rather like that of the nearby Blackwater Valley Path).
When looking at the elements in the web based editor I could see so many addition and omissions for the Basingstoke Canal that contributed to that fractured state. In particular there were several locations at which the Hiking Route was mapped on both sides of the Canal. And several places where the route was doubled at intersections with bridges, including being mapped on road elements leading away from the canal.
What is there now is a continuous route from the just west of Up Nately to the Wey Navigation. I have not added to those ends. In my view there is now a working base to make further tidy ups.
My questions / challenge to you, Jon include:
Why was the mapped route in such a parlous state before my preliminary work?
Why are three small unconnected sections mapped east of Basingstoke and west of Up Nately?
I am more than content for you to put finishing touches to this canal route.
If there are places where a walking route has alternatives in some places these are best mapped as an alternative route (with code, say, BCalt in this instance. But please bear in mind that a hiking route is a contiguous set of elements, just like a bus route.
Jon, I look forward to working with you to get a satisfactory outcome for all.
Best wishes, Alan
PS: now to consider your next comment.

"By their interests you will know them" with apologies to Saint Matthew.

I walked this rute in November 2017 when the workd were were well underway but not then complete.

I deliberately did not (knowingly) change anything to do with NCR 7. You will need to discuss with the promoters of that cycle route as to what their preferences are.

I think you my have made the point that the international usage of path, coupled with the "cycle layer" in the iD editor for those wanting to see cycleways, is a better way to do things

With kind regards, Alan

@DaveF, re sidewalk again.
The Wiki (at osm.wiki/Sidewalks and the section Terminology discusses why this is the preferred tag for space identified in some way as part of a road but not for motor vehicles.
It is my understanding that have right of way (unless specifically removed, eg motorways, under legislation) on paths and roads.
That being the case it follows that those on foot on a sidewalk have priority over other designated users (eg cyclists) on the same sidewalk.
The designation comes from the local authority (not a ramblers, harriers or cycling group) and is shown on official road side signage, or painted on the sidewalk.

It is my clear understanding the shared use signage does not set aside the common law right of way (and primacy) for those on foot.

Kind regards

@DaveF, thanks for the probably better forum link. I think this is the one from which I looked at the July to date archive a few days ago.
I would want to read my way in before making any talking-points.

regards, Alan
regards

@DaveF, re sidewalk.
My response is both yes and no.
In a sandbox (using the browser editor) I drew a line.
The prompts for me to map the nature of the line included "Sidewalk"
Selecting that put in two tags.
So, yes, one can select "Sidewalk" up front and, yes, the editor does the work behind the scenes.
In a practical sense I have selected "highway=...sidewalk".

kind regards, Alan

@DaveF, your response is the more complete than mine.
Plus also "*=designated".
In my defence, I was trying for an uncluttered response.
regards, Alan

@DaveF, you have made many statements. Some of which are about a standard of mapping that you obviously hod dear. I can only wish my training was a detailed as yours.

You ask for evidence that the Kenett and Avon trail extends into Bristol.

There are several direct and a number indirect.

But so I can reply in context I first ask these questions of you.
Do you have any evidence:
1) ocean going boats went up the Avon from Bristol?
2) canal boats never (or hardly ever) went from Bath to Bristol and return?
3) goods were lightered from Bristol to a quay side at Bath to be transferred there to canal boats?
4) any other possibility?

If you do have such evidence, please provide so I can reply with mine couched appropriately.

kind regards

@trigpointg, thank you.

My question was "what interest do you have in the various matters you have raised?"

By way of example, are you only interested in all things near your home?
Or do you have training in mapping from, say, NCR? Or something completely different?

My purpose is to see what we have in common and to work forward from there.

kind regards

If you say so.

But you didn't ask a question about why.

They evidence the tag "highway=cycle and foot way".

My understanding is that tag has been removed and the advice is to replace with "=path"

You have now reverted to a redacted tag.

By your own actions you declare yourself to be lacksadaiscal and proves you are a mapper possibly caught in a time warp of long ago.

I suggest you consider refraining from taking a high position and add value to the entire process.

With kind regards

The quotes are not mine but from the wiki.

I agree, the gold standard is to have a name a regular intervals along a route.

When a route has been noted, explicitly or implicitly, by others then naming it in OSM is useful to those who come later. And that is what OSM is all about, users adding their bit of information.

So, nothing is a shot in the dark. The canal and the current trail are well indicated in online material.

kind regards

@DaveF, a tag of cycleway does imply cycling is the dominant use.
What is there is a path.
That a Euro, NCR or local cycle route is signposted only goes to confirm it is a shared path. And imagery indicates as many (if not more) on foot as on other means of getting about.
So "=Path" is the proper tagging with appropriate access tagged as "=yes".

First map what is "on the ground", then tag the access. To tag a shared path as "=cycleway" indicates a conscious (or, possibly, an unconscious) bias.

kind regards

@DaveF, thank you for your comments.
OSM is an international publication. This partly explains, from the Wiki, why "highway=sidewalk" is the preferred tag in suburban areas at least for what I, and I suspect you also, would be happier to tag as "=footpath".
You are correct for all "highway=*" tags "cycle=yes" must be present for a CycleRoute relation to be effective. In the same way as "foot=yes" is also required for HikingRoute relations, and so on.
It is my practice to note what access and route relations were marked before and ensure they are continued after any changes. If I have missed some, that is regretted but is not not intentional.

regards

@ndm.
A few days ago I have looked at the talk-GB mailing list for the first several days of July 2019.

A phrase I saw, and took to heart, is to map what is physically there.

I will continue to look from time to time.

Kind regards
I will

@SomeoneElse, thank you.
But what does this mean.
How does your comment relate to the Wiki, where licences are not mentioned.

King regards

@trigpoint, greetings
You have asked many questions recently. Too many at one sitting to answer.
I have asked you one.
I think it not unreasonable for you to answer that one.

kind regards

I should add, reversion of a complete change set for one apparent transgression (which can be fixed by itself, if the wiki description is wrong) seems like a blunderbus strategy.

Please look again at the image. You can see a sidewalk to the left and a road to the right. They are mapped separately.

regards

@ndm, thank you
I looked at available imagery.
I found an urban sidewalk with signage (blue roundel showing a bicycle and child holding the hand of an older person.
The location of the sidewalk indicates use is a foot way as well as a cycle way.
Neither use is dominant.
A route of any type is not recorded.

From the wiki, the tags are sidewalk, footpath or path with both foot and bicycle showing yes.

The wiki suggests sidewalk is most relevant in this situation. See osm.wiki/Sidewalks

regards

@ndm, thanks, a good suggestion

Does "duck test" in this context mean "if it quacks like a duck ..."?
Or does it mean something else?

regards

Of course, marking as a path does not in anyway affect any cycling route relationships. These will still be displayed in the "Cycle Map" layer and in "cycling.WayMarkedTrails.org": these are 'fed' from the OpenStreetMap database and can be as up to date as posts made within the last few minutes before an enquiry.