Thanks for this news! In light of this, I'll change the name and ref initials for the trails' relation. Thanks for drawing the new paths!

Hi. Are these paths owned and managed by County Parks? I noticed that Metro MTB are calling this/these the Kletzsch Park Trails but the County page only recognizes the River Glen Trail. Are these informal MTB or CX paths?

Hi. Does way/878780839 still exist? I was there this weekend and saw no pathway here, just the bend in the stream. Is it a path only usable during winter?

None of these ways exist on the ground in real life - why were they drawn??

By "router," do you mean a person doing routing or a site like BRouter or RidewithGPS? In my experience with both of these, they can sometimes have trouble with separate bikeways parallel to roadways, especially when both are crossed by multiple service roads. I could be convinced one way or another, I just wanted to get my opinion on the record. I'm basing my argument almost entirely on the fact that the new VB bikeway is on the same unimproved road surface as the VB roadway itself. If it were freshly resurfaced, I think a separate cycle path would make the most sense, but as it is now, riding it feels (imo) barely different than the roadway.

I think the the new Van Buren cycleway should be tagged as a track on Van Buren itself, since it is not a separate feature in real life and is on the same surface as the roadway itself. That said, it appears that the southern section (from Kilbourn south) will be a separate surface and object.

Although I suppose an argument could be made that since they are side by side and level but neither the same surface nor the same pathway, there could be concrete sidewalks and asphalt one-way cycle paths as separate and parallel ways. Perhaps this would be best, to keep them discreet. Currently, they render in OpenCycleMap and CyclOSM as the same double-designated pathways.

Great find! Sorry I doubted you! After looking at that footage, and seeing as how the bike path and sidewalk are side by side but on the same level, perhaps we could re-tag these ways as feature type Cycle & Foot Path, with the oneway applying to only bikes:
bicycle=designated
highway=cycleway
cycleway:surface=asphalt
oneway:bicycle=yes
foot=designated
footway:surface=concrete
segregated=yes
surface=paved
What do you think?

I'm afraid these don't exist... There are only regular concrete sidewalks here.

Hey Alex, why did you retag Scott as unclassified/minor instead of residential?

Great catch, thanks!

There is definitely a gate, on the eastern end near Lake Oswego Road (and that gate node has a note), but on multiple imagery layers there is a clear footpath around the gate. There does not appear to be a gate on the western end of the dam road. I think these features were first mapped under the assumption they are private roads part of the cranberry bog, but it seems instead that this is a public right-of-way. Unfortunately, I won't be able to visit here in person until July at the earliest!

Hi! It seems you're familiar with the Oswego Lake Dam and the area. The road that runs along the dam is named differently on different maps. Do you know if it's Andrews Rd or Allen Rd? And is it a private road or public? It appears on both Strava's and RidewithGPS's activity heatmaps, but another OSM user tagged it as Private in 2016. Can you clarify this? Thanks!

Forgot to mention in my changeset comment: Cycleast is closed, but Flat Track Coffee is servicing bikes, so I changed the name and removed outdated business info.

Changeset comment ran out of charactes. The same applies for the separated cycle path that was drawn on W 38th St. In places where SC Blvd crosses major roads and cycle paths are fully separated and protected by concrete curbs, I kept those and attached them to the roadways. I made ever effort to tag roadways as cycleway=separate where necessary but could have missed some. This was a big edit in OSM ID that got stuck in an endless Checking for Conflicts, so I downloaded the changes.osc file and used JOSM to push the update (my first time using JOSM). So I hope this worked correctly.

Hi pkoby, I've found that OpenCycleMap won't render cycleway:both=lane but needs the left and right modifiers. CyclOSM, meanwhile, has no trouble with "both." This obviously doesn't apply to the paths in this changeset, but your project also seems to cover roads, which is great!

You edit drug the node of a cycle path across buildings, roadways, etc, and snapped it to a stadium. This also caused it to double-back on itself. I can fix this for you, if you'd like. Please be sure to address any Warnings before you submit changes, as they will alert you to issues like this.

Please be VERY careful dragging the map! Take care to not drag nodes, and turn off layers you are not using. node/10929756003/history#map=19/30.28267/-97.73060

Hi there. Thanks for adding bike lane data! I've seen your work in several other cities, and it's much appreciated. But please retain/add "cycleway=lane" and/or "cycleway:left/right=lane" in addition to "cycleway:both=lane" because OpenCycleMap cannot render "cycleway:both=lane" yet. Which is a major shortcoming! CyclOSM, however, can render all three.

Has this begun or finished yet!? Super exciting!