@adreamy: Cool, go ahead! Please leave a link to this original post if people want to reach out here.

Nice overview! You might also like https://mapcomplete.org/playgrounds for mapping and rendering.

Great work, great post!

I’m late to comment here, but I came back to your diary post after noticing the proposed cycling highway and detour on OSM mapped in my hometown. My input: * I have no problem with mapping officially proposed cycling highways as “proposed”, even if this does not meet the “what’s on the ground”-rule. The only weird situations are where it’s already certain that the proposal will not make it. Municipalities are kindly asked to reserve space for the cycling highways, but some of them don’t really care and allow new developments on the proposed tracé. In these situations, we could keep the officially proposed tracé, although it might look a bit silly. * When a proposed cycling highway is not signposted (yet), it should not be mapped as a cycling highway. I see this is not the case at the moment: proposed cycling highways that are not realised on the ground are already mapped as cycling highways. Be aware that it could even be unresponsible to lead cyclists to these unrealised (sometimes unsafe) stretches and not to safer alternatives. Can we agree these segments should be remapped to a proposed status? * I agree with Marc en Joost that mapping suggestions as “detours” should not be done in OSM. These can indeed by very subjective and if there’s no sign in reality saying “detour”, it should not be mapped as such. I came across one where I would definitely suggest another detour, but my opinion has as much/little value as others opinions. Can we leave these detours out of OSM?

So in the end, it would be really simple: map realised (signposted) cycling highways as cycling highways and map proposed cycling highways as proposed cycling highways. I understand the desire to deviate from this common sense and from the consensus in the community, but then it should be done outside of OSM.