This is very helpful; thank you very much!

I appreciate this changeset comment very much. Could you tell me about your process and any advice you have? The multipolygon landuse areas are out of control in some places, and I'm nervous I will break relations somewhere. It's also aggravating that so many landuse polygons are snapped to roads and paths.

In doing this, I also updated/corrected the boundary for Bass River State Forest North, but have not yet done the same work for BRSF South.

Gotcha! Thanks for all this. I think I disagree on your latter point though; I think that a trail user following audio or textual directions would find it more helpful to see/hear "Oak Leaf Trail" than "Menomonee Parkway," because most people have the association that path=trail, and hearing "Parkway" might confuse people into thinking the path/trail is closed and/or the roadway is preferential. Right?

But yes, I definitely agree about the signage and consistency. I've been seeing a lot more signs and trying to mark them as info boards/maps where appropriate. I think by now County Parks has done a good enough job signing the route lines that we should just name the pathways - or at least the "main lines" of the route lines, as drawn in the County's Interactive OLT Map. Maybe this is a good compromise?

Can you remind me why we agreed to remove the OLT Lines' names from the pathways themselves? I can't remember if spoke via DM or changeset comment. Anyway, I use RidewithGPS exclusively, and I've found the audio directions to be really consistent - and really really handy when a pathway IS actually named with the route line, so I know (for instance) that I'm turning slight right onto an OLT path and not hard right onto a roadway. I'm very willing to re/name each member way in each of the 11 lines' relations if we can come to a consensus about this. It seems many other users have recently been re/naming segments with the same names of the Lines/relations.

Ok yeah, I still think mapping the cycle-tracks as =track on the roadway itself is still more accurate than by drawing them as separate geometries, since they are part of the roadways themselves and not separated paths.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but VB and Holton both have - and will keep - protected two-way cycle-tracks and will not receive (as far as I know) one-way separated cycle-tracks (Kilbourn and Walnut).

I think I might be confused; do you mean the concrete barriers at being added to separate the two-way cycle-track from Van Buren's car traffic, or right down the middle of the cycle-track itself?

Thanks for doing this! This is really good to know. I was not familiar with this and will be sure to take note for next time. Does the Byrne Cranberry Trail loop look correct?

I have some concerns about the cycletrack geometry, and I have a suggestion that avoids having to solve any current or future layer problems. Since this two-way cycle track is not grade separated, and since it is on the same roadway surface as Holton, I would suggest it be retagged onto the Holton roadways themselves. That way, it avoids any layer issues, avoids any rendering issues in other maps (we don't want drivers seeing a parallel way and thinking it's a road, and this would preclude any future access tag inconsistencies on a separate geometric object.
I'd recommend that Holton and Van Buren be tagged as:
bicycles=designated
cycleway:right=track
cycleway:left=lane (for the southbound Holton lane only)
oneway:bicycles=no (to ensure that routing algorithms still work for southbound riders in the cycle track on the right/northbound side of the road)
This way, it also simplifies the geometry of lines (and the Holton bridge area polygon) over the river, which is already pretty busy and confusing because of the marsupial bridge path underneath.

Thanks for your edit - and this comment! I think it's really important to ask engineers these targeted questions.

Hi there. Please use the feature type Golf Cartpath in the future for ways like these, or the tags golf=cartpath and golf_cart=yes. Thanks!

I was hoping for the same thing. Based on recent construction, it looks like we may be in luck after all - unfortunately for me, it was the part of the Couture that I was most excited for and it looks like they've left it for last. I hope they provide a viable connection and get the light timing appreciably right.

Do you mean way/683798300/ or in that area? Not at all, and my apologies! A huge oversight on my part (and the City's and County's for not making that a more useful thoroughfare!)

Sounds good! Thanks for doing all this work; I haven't seen it myself in person yet, post-construction.

re: the three cycle ways 1315628513, 1312868138, and 1315582292 - I'm concerned that they will negatively impact routing algorithms and I'm wondering if they are better mapped as cyclway:right=track, since this is how the rest of Walnut and Pleasant are tagged (rather than as their own objects/lines). Also, Walnut is a member of the city bike route network. To keep the geometry consistent and not confuse routers, could we retag these bike lanes as part of the roadways themselves?

I forgot to add this link - when you edit the OLT, please make sure that changes reflect the official system map:
https://mclio.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1106361257924a59a8fe371550b3133f For instance, this way isn't the main line of the OLT and due to its degraded surface (and current construction) it is not desirable or correct to tag it as designated for bikes: way/55269511/history

Hi! Please keep the paths consistent throughout the network. The local consensus seems to be to use the preset feature "cycle and footpath" only for the "main channel" (so to speak) of each Oak Leaf Line (and not the branches, which will be either basic paths or footpaths. Please note that the preset feature Cycle & Footpath will automatically add "=designated" access tags to food and bicycle, which may not be desirable for routing algorithms.

Geez, I can't believe I missed that. My concern is that it seems to render a label at much higher zoom altitudes than the actual names of the OLT lines! Is there maybe some way to deprioritize it?

How do we feel about totally removing the East Side Bike Trail relation? It's utterly redundant - it's all already covered by the OLT Milwaukee River Line, and the name has fallen out of usage too. Everybody I know just calls it the Oak Leaf Trail. I think keeping the relation around has the potential to confuse new OSM users, and create busy work for everyone.