I think it was the user prior to you, but is it redundant for W Locust to have ref=I 43 Alternate when its ways are also members of the I 43 Alternate relation? I think the ref tags are causing W Locust to render with the I-43 badges...

Much of footpath way #206042064 was opened during covid and subsequent winters for pedestrians and bicyclists. It's stayed this way every winter, during the Summerfest Grounds' off-season. What do you think about tagging this and other footpaths as bicycles=yes while keeping, modifying, and adding a few more Gate nodes?

A few segments of Howard EB and WB are Secondary Links instead of Secondary Roads. Should they be Sec Roads too?

Me too! Shame it's not official...

Hello! What is the Big Easy shelter? Is it private? It doesn't appear on any other maps I've seen.

I noticed the same thing! But figured I'd leave it for you or someone else who's more familiar with the area. My guess is that the path itself is not named, so since it is a part of two different trails, it should also belong to a Route relation called Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway (Trail). Or, if LSHG(T) IS the name, then I suppose Mason-Dixon Trail should be removed as a name but kept as a relation. What do you think is best?

My mistake. This Hiking Route relation already exists.

Track roads do not usually disallow bicycles and horses. If that segment of the Batona Trail is a path, please feel free to tag it as a path. It is currently a track road named (perhaps incorrectly) as the Batona Trail. The BT should probably become a Hiking Route Relation of members (foot paths and track roads where accurate) rather than a series of unrelated ways with name=Batona Trail.

I've gotten different results with BRouter and RWGPS too. Rather than tagging bicycles=yes in municipalities in which it's allowed but not designated, it may be enough to add surface values to sidewalks. In my experience (with RWGPS especially) that can often be enough to trigger a prioritization over other nearby ways.

I have some concerns about bicycles=yes on the Northway sidewalks. Not only does it cause routing engines to go haywire when routing through this area, Greendale village forbids riding bikes on sidewalks in business districts. Wouldn't Northway count, in this case? I think the default Not Specified would be best. What do you think?
https://www.murphyprachthauser.com/blog/milwaukee-personal-injury-lawyer-blog/can-lawfully-ride-bike-wisconsin
And a quick clarification, Greenfield disobeys it (for public over 12yo).
https://library.municode.com/wi/greenfield/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH8TRCO_8.18REOPBI

It is imperative for routing engines, opencyclemap.org, and cyclosm.org that the Perkiomen Trail relation remain a Bicycle Route relation. It IS also a foot trail, so all member ways should also have a second relation of either Walking Route, Hiking Route, or simply Route. But a Bicycle Route relation is crucial. Would you like to make this change?

Could we perhaps retire the relation Easton to Pen Argyl Regional Trail (2851685)? Is it explicitly called this on trail signs? Since the local relation PTRT connects to other local trail relations, an Easton-Pen Argyl relation may confuse some users and routing engines. What do you think?

Cheers, thanks for the help. These were some of my first, while I was still learning. Maybe I shouldn't map after midnight!

Thanks for the heads-up! Corrected.

Also created the new Theater District. I oopsed, and thought I'd submitted two different changesets. Oops.

I think we should refrain from snapping landuse boundaries to roadways. It seems the community documentation consensus is that they should be drawn to the edge of each block rather than roadways' centerlines. It's getting pretty tough to edit and update roadways when landuse is snapped to them.

Hey there. I'm wondering why you tagged all these sidewalks as bicycles=yes. I don't see any signs indicating this in Street View, and it's kind of plays hell with routing engines in that area...

Great point! Probably, but I'm not sure - they're not gated or explicitly restricted in the same way the roadway itself is. https://goo.gl/maps/zoib8RGomWSaErsu7 What do you think?

You wrote on changeset #126302997: "It is a hiking trail that allows bicycles, and not a bicycle trail that allows hiking." What is your source for this? This seems to contradict your last comment, that the signage and websites express no preference or priority, but yet (as of version 11 in changeset #122711936), this trail had a regional bicycle route and the correct highway=path, rather than only highway=footway from version 12. Why is this?

I'm not suggesting that a changeset commentary should determine usage, nor that this commentary should determine designations. But since this trail is currently designated for both foot and cycle traffic, and is an established bike trail, it deserves a regional Bike Route relation.

I'm simply asking for other users' sources for why the Bugline is no longer a Bike Route relation, and for why its type is Foot Path instead of Path, which maintains both Foot=designated and Cycle=designated.

I am not familiar with any rule or precedent that insists that footways cannot also be Cycle Route Relations, but I would argue that since the Bugline IS designated for both foot AND cycle traffic, a general Path type is warranted instead of Foot Path.