Yeah I just went with ATYL, knowing full well it isn't ideal. Didn't have time to look into if there was any established way of tagging it. `hgv_bypass` is probably better, but it isn't a bypass (like a speed cushion would be), but more of a gentler slope for wide track width vehicles. Do you think `partial` is a good value for the bypass tag or is bypass the wrong choice of word altogether for something that doesn't actually bypass it?

Hej!
Hur kom du fram till riktningen på cykelbanorna här i området? way/1021617028/history/2
Jag är ganska säker på att det inte finns några enkelriktade cykelbanor här, och nu ser det dessutom jättekonstigt ut att man inte kan ta sig tillbaka till Emporia från andra sidan rondellen.

Hej! Hur kom du fram till nya hastighetsgränser som skiljer sig från den skyltade? Kan klart ha hänt en del på fyra år men nu skiljer sig OSM från NJDB, och jag tänker att NJDB borde väl innehålla den gällande gränsen?

It already existed. Why did you add this duplicate? (Another question is why haven’t anyone noticed it in over two years??)

Yes, same as the previous ones you have commented on :)

Jeez, you couldv'e just told me 😅
Fixed!

What's wrong with it?

Hi, when adding names, please add the correct one. :)
I've now fixed all of Ystadvägen (not Ystadsvägen)

I tried undeleting only the solar panels but it didn't work since another user already tried fixing the broken roads and thereby deleted a node necessary to perform the revert. So I unfortunately had to revert the whole changeset: changeset/167195883

Tack!

Hello, thanks for your dedication to quality control!
I didn't add any tags at all from what I can remember, only a drop-in replacement from building:roof:* to roof:*. That node (which really is nonsensical as it has no top level tags) had *=pitched before I touched it as well.

Nja, `mixed_use` är inget vedertaget värde på `building`. Det ska vara vad byggnaden ursprungligen uppfördes som. Är den byggd för att vara hotell bör den taggas som hotell. Angående `historic` verkar det vara lite mer vilda västern, men de flesta byggnader med `historic`-tagg är riktigt gamla och anrika, typ slott och herrgårdar. Upp till dig om den här byggnaden passar till den skaran. :)

After further investigation it looks like some signs on the street are incorrect. Will continue to investigate and correct tagging as I go along...

Hi,
What sources do you have for this changeset? I started investigating these streets since a user reported that routing doesn't work here (note/4672814) and all streets that I've checked are tagged with incorrect access, oneway and bicycle tags.

Hej!
capacity=150 kan väl knappast stämma? Jag kan se fyra nya laddstolpar, borde väl bli 8 platser som kan utnyttjas samtidigt?

Thanks for the reply!
Ah, I see. It's not a street address, but a village address. I'll remove it from the street, then!

Hi,
Where did you get the name Stora Åsa from? It's not to be found in NVDB.
Asking since a Microsoft mapper raised the question due to a user report.

Thanks for your answer.

As usual, there can be no exact boundries drawn. There are however a few aspects to weight together to decide whether a path should be drawn separately or tagged on the main road. I can't seem to find a wiki page dedicated to where to draw the line, so the following are my mapping practices, and judgments after lots of community consultation on several edge-cases I've stumbled upon over the years.

One aspect is distance. If there is so much space that grass is grown as separation, how would you map the grass if the ways were not separately mapped? Here, the mapping aspect decides for us. If people usually cross the grass at a certain point, an "informal path" can be drawn over the grass, but usually, people walk along the footway and don't cross the grass if it's not in the way.

Another aspect is physical barriers, and a high kerb is often considered too much of a barrier for the ways not to be mapped separately. It's impossible to traverse with a wheelchair, scooter, sportscar etc. Possible with a bike or a normal car with great care, but not advisable, and sometimes illegal. You would not connect a road or a bike path over a high kerb, but a non-wheelchair friendly "footway link" could cross such a kerb.

For separation between a parallel footway and cycleway:
- A high kerb with street light posts inbetween makes the footway more of a "sidewalk" to the cycleway, so separated ways felt natural there, but some considered it too detailed, although an acceptable way of mapping.
- Just a painted line obviously doesn't warrant separated mapping, as there is no physical separation at all.
- A slanted kerb is an edgecase, where I believe a majority of people would lean to mapping as a combined cycle- and foot path, as you can easily traverse it with a bike, and with some difficulty probably also with a wheelchair.
- Having no height difference at all, and only a change of surfaces, as is the case we're discussing here, is considered no physical separation. You wouldn't map sidewalks on a pedestrian street where the middle section is sett and the edges paving stones, and you wouldn't map separated paths here either, where the cycleway and footway run parallel to each other with no obstacles in between.

If there are planters, bike parking or benches etc, as is the case on the corner of Thulegatan and Råsundavägen, for example, separated paths should be drawn (and I missed those). But here it's also up to the mapper to judge how many crossing ways are needed between two separate paths (since they inhibit routing between them if there are no connecting paths). If there is no navigational need to cross between say two benches placed a few metres apart, even though physically possible, a separate footway would be unnecessary clutter. But if there is an entrance at that point, a crossing footway would be beneficial, to facilitate routing up to the entrance from the bike path.

I hope this gives you insight into my reasoning and makes sense!

Hi,

The omission of surfaces and access tags on small segments is sloppy editing on my part, which I apologise for.
As for the separation, if it's just a line of cobblestone (although I'd imagine it's sett, as I've never seen cobblestone used in such cases), it's easily traversable and thus not physical separation. The path should therefore be combined into one linear way, with tags describing the different surfaces.
One way is almost always nonsensical for foot traffic (except on footways in e.g. airports). [The community is pretty aligned on this.](https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/poll-interpreting-oneway-yes/123638). Furthermore, exceedingly few bike paths are actuelly one-way, legally speaking, but that's another issue.

Would you be okay with me fixing my slip-ups and leaving it at that?

Best regards and happy mapping,
Hidoo

Haha ja, absolut