Whooops. Sorry, didn't realise I still had a changeset open.

Yep, but they shouldn't. 75 is the ref and doesn't need to be duplicated in the name tag; a rural A-road is just tagged "ref=A3400" and not "name=A3400 road". There's been quite a lot of discussion of this on the various mailing lists, community.osm.org, Nominatim issue tracker etc. and it utterly fouls up any attempt to do anything with the data.

Hi! I think you accidentally broke the continuity of the NCN 403 cycle route relation in this edit. I've repaired it but you might want to keep an eye out for route relations in future when merging ways.

cheers
Richard

Sadly would be typical - councils often seem to think of cycle routes as a bauble to soak up some capital funding rather than something that needs ongoing revenue funding for maintenance/upgrades!

Crap, forgot to close one before starting the next. Sorry for big bbox.

That's great, thank you. The railway is abandoned but the bridge is still there :)

Yes, I usually do (as you can see by looking at my changesets), but on this one I forgot to close the earlier edits. Mea culpa.

Hello - you've changed a road into a track in this edit. I'm guessing you didn't mean to do that!

Hi! Could you tell me why the bridge tags have been removed here?

Hi! I think you mistakenly changed US Bicycle Route System route 90 to be USBRS route 10 in this edit. I've changed it back.

St Davids has been tagged as a city in OSM for 15+ years. It is of course possible you are uniquely clever and have found something that thousands of OSM editors in the UK have hitherto missed! But even then you should aim to work with the community consensus rather than overruling it. I'm reverting it and would suggest you discuss on the talk-gb@ mailing list first if you want to make major changes like this.

Hi - in this changeset you've set bicycle=no on I-90. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-motorized_access_on_freeways and various other references say that bicycles are permitted on interstates in Montana - is there some other information you have?

Hi,

In this changeset you've changed the site of former bridges like way/844194538 to "bridge=yes".

bridge=yes is a tag for things that are a bridge. This is not a bridge. If you try to walk over it or a drive a train over it you will drown.

Could you please not use bridge=yes for things where bridge not equals yes. Thank you very much.

Haha. I like your optimism. The Montgomery Canal has been under restoration since the 1960s and it will be a while yet until it’s finished. The current focus of restoration is Schoolhouse Bridge. I and other mappers do methodically update OSM as each section is (slowly!) reopened.

> If you ask komoot, b-router, waze, garmin

Given that I run cycle.travel I'm not going to ask any of those ;)

Anyway. The point is that when there is something more nuanced you should find a way of preserving that nuance rather than just blatting it out the way. Maybe leave a changeset comment to say "what does this mean?", maybe change the bicycle= tag but preserve the =tolerated value in another tag, or whatever. Don't steamroller the individuality and local knowledge of OSM in some misguided quest for consistency.

Please don't remove nuance from tagging from places you've never been. :(

I know this area very well. I live nearby and I've been campaigning for this cycle path to be upgraded for many years.

"permissive" means that you are allowed along there by permission of the landowner, though not by right. "tolerated" doesn't mean that, but means that bikes are tolerated. That is the situation there. That is why I tagged it like that.

Hi - you've changed bicycle=tolerated to bicycle=permissive. Could you tell me where you saw evidence of the permission for bicycles please?

Hi Steve,

Apologies for dredging something up from 9 years ago :)

You have a gate here (node/2922796162) which is tagged as bicycle=no.

But it's on a bicycle=permissive path and I _think_ (not sure) it might be part of the King Alfred's Way cycle route.

Do you know what the situation is?

I’m entirely relaxed about you not arguing if that means you’re not going to steam in and screw up the UK consensus again. It’d be lovely if you could turn your attention to the more pertinent fact that most small-scale rendered OSM maps of France look like ass because of the very long standing density issues. Good luck!

So let's put some numbers to this:

select *,pop_est/ct as pop_per_city from (select count(*) as ct,c.name,pop_est from country_polygons c join planet_osm_point on place='city' and st_contains(geom,way) group by c.name,c.pop_est) as q order by pop_per_city desc;

name | pop_per_city
------------------+------------------------
Austria | 1459068.833333333333
France | 1427790.659574468085
Czechia | 1186080.333333333333
Ireland | 1002220.400000000000
Germany | 948164.905882352941
Belgium | 883949.692307692308
Switzerland | 823630.300000000000
United Kingdom | 681783.705263157895
Slovakia | 680728.625000000000
Italy | 654082.126315789474
Estonia | 625790.500000000000
Luxembourg | 594130.000000000000
Poland | 582973.772727272727
Lithuania | 564771.800000000000
Denmark | 560594.800000000000
Spain | 520831.478723404255
Hungary | 518465.526315789474
Netherlands | 502491.735294117647
Sweden | 498024.350000000000
Romania | 398703.092592592593
Slovenia | 394425.200000000000
Norway | 354669.666666666667
Bosnia and Herz. | 350561.909090909091
Iceland | 339747.000000000000
Croatia | 330161.153846153846
Bulgaria | 273135.000000000000
Greece | 269211.925000000000
Serbia | 245207.724137931034
Kosovo | 236906.250000000000
Albania | 234460.538461538462
Finland | 228800.750000000000
Latvia | 194464.300000000000
Macedonia | 140248.066666666667
Montenegro | 91792.857142857143
Isle of Man | 88815.000000000000
Portugal | 73239.959459459459
San Marino | 33537.000000000000
Gibraltar | 29396.000000000000

In other words, the UK is not at all atypical in the number of place=city nodes for Europe, scaled per head of population. Most similarly sized countries have a comparable density. France and Austria are outliers.