Heya, I think you're looking at the wrong changeset. This one only added a way to that relation.

However, when I was messing with the Lake Washington Loop relation, it was to update it with three pieces of info: (1) the new construction in that area on 520 changed the route options, (2) there had been no sidewalks mapped out there and the sidewalk seemed more appropriate for some portions of that route, and (3) the relation itself had both gaps and inappropriate ways that needed to be split, which I believe is what I did with East Hamlin. I just reviewed the current state of the relation and aside from some new gaps far away from this, it seems accurate.

Sounds good! More sidewalks mapped is better than this distinction, imo, so your strategy is totally cool by me. I've been wanting a tag like footway=link or something similar for a while, just haven't gotten on the proposal process. Thanks for your mapping as well!

Hey there!

The connections between sidewalks and other footpaths (like crossings) is ambiguous and poorly defined. They are definitely not sidewalk centerlines, for example. In lieu of an unambiguous standard, I just leave them as highway=footway while we develop better ways to tag. Hope this makes sense!

Also, it's best to ignore the renderer, which appears to just be inconsistent about footways that have a layer tag in this instance anyways - when layer is not set, sidewalks and plain footways are rendered identically.

you too!

Looks like that came from changeset/49952040 (not mine). It consisted nearly entirely of changes like that (way nodes in the wrong positions), so I reverted those.

Forgot to comment - these paths no longer exist, likely permanently, due to construction.