What evidence do you have that this is called Elon Musk Airport?

Hi Bernard - sure, if you know better, please do go ahead and correct it! :)

Hi! Great to see the work you've been doing.

When changing road class to =unclassified or =tertiary, please include a surface= tag to say what surface the road is. Just surface=paved or surface=unpaved is fine if you don't know anything more specific.

Generally in the developed world, highway=unclassified (or better) is assumed to be a paved road unless otherwise stated. Tagging unpaved roads without adding a surface tag means that directions apps can send cars and bicycles down roads for which they're unsuited.

cheers -- Richard

Hi Scott - great to see all the work you've been doing!

Generally in the developed world (I think Kansas counts :) ), then highway=tertiary or highway=unclassified would imply a paved road unless tagged otherwise.

Would you be able to add a surface tag when retagging roads like this? Just highway=unpaved is fine if you don't know exactly whether it's gravel/dirt/whatever.

Having dirt roads without specific tagging breaks several uses of OSM, e.g. bike routing where cyclists might be directed onto a road unsuitable for their bike/abilities.

cheers -- Richard

I've done a first pass.

@AlwynWellington this has nothing to do with path tagging at all, please stop trolling.

Hi - great to see the work you're doing. A county highway would not usually be tagged as highway=primary - that's more usually used for US highways and the like. I've changed County Highway 21 back to tertiary.

Thanks for the reply! I can certainly confirm that cycle.travel doesn't use those colour values as I run the site. :) It uses universal values for ncn, rcn, lcn and icn routes.

The issue is that I deliberately _don't_ want to render London Cycle Network routes, because they are inconsistently signed; no guarantee of a good route; in many places have been superseded; and serve to clutter the map. The code to exclude these routes looked for the value "UK:London Cycle Network"... which now doesn't work.

There is an automated edits policy for a reason - you can't expect every data consumer to monitor changes on n thousand wiki pages, particularly for sites which operate across many cities or countries. Note that the policy expressly says "it is not acceptable to cite using the wiki as justification for widespread changes to the data without appropriate consultation".

Usually I would revert the changeset, but in this case the damage has already been done and there's probably no benefit to doing so. But please do note that you have to follow the automated edits policy for any future edits like that.

cheers --Richard

Hi - did you go through the Automated Edits code of conduct for this change? (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)

I haven't seen notification of it anywhere and it's broken cycle.travel's rendering :(

Hi Pontius - it seemed anomalous to have something that isn't a state route or US route tagged as primary. More than happy to defer to your local knowledge if you think otherwise though!

Thanks. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here.

motor_vehicle=yes does not mean "vehicles have been seen here". It means "there is a legal right of access for vehicles".

Seeing vehicles on imagery does not mean that there is a legal right of access for all vehicles. They could be the owner's private vehicles. Or the owner may be extending informal permission temporarily but there is no legal right (motor_vehicle=permissive).

In the UK, public roads with a legal right of access for cars are almost always paved. If you see a highway=track (or =bridleway, or =path) with cars on, then 95% of the time, motor_vehicle=yes will be the wrong tag. There are some exceptions but they are rare and will usually already have been mapped as such.

Perhaps you could feed this back to your Organised Editing programme. Thanks.

Hi - you've added motor_vehicle=yes to way #159381675. What evidence do you have that there is a legal right of way for motor vehicles along this path? https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/54906 suggests that it's a bridleway, in which case there is no legal right of access.

Route ordering is not particularly significant. Any client that makes major use of ordered routes will reorder the data before consuming it.

A really good principle for OSM is "be liberal in what you add, cautious in what you change". People have been mapping cycle routes in Britain for 11 years now - many UK cycle route mappers are actually volunteers for the charity that maintains the National Cycle Network. It is very unlikely that you have suddenly come up with some great insight as to why they've been doing it wrong all these years. Even if you think you have, you should run it past the community first before making sweeping changes.

Because this breaks bike routing, I'll revert this changeset unless I hear any other compelling reasons asap.

Hi Kyle,

Great to see the work you've been doing!

In a developed country like the US, we'd usually assume highway=secondary to be a paved road. Being able to judge the surface correctly is particularly important for vehicles (e.g. road bikes) which are unable to use non-paved roads. Here's an example of where it's important - https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=1mr&page_id=579972&v=5W where the cyclists had to walk for 2km because the surface wasn't tagged in OpenStreetMap!

So for a road like Stony Hollow Road (way/15879615), the current mapping of highway=secondary is a bit misleading unless there's a surface tag.

Could I encourage you to add surface tags to unpaved roads you edit? surface=gravel or surface=dirt would be great, but you can be less specific with surface=unpaved if it's easier.

All the best
Richard

Hi - you've added access=permissive to several ways in Blenheim based on private arrangements you have with Blenheim. This isn't appropriate - access=permissive means "permissive access for everyone", not just for one company. I'll change it back to the correct values.

I'm guessing it was probably a case of seeing a tarmac bit at the intersection, but unfortunately the way changed character quite drastically across its full course! I split it yesterday so it should be a bit more aligned with reality now.

surface= tags are a really good way of differentiating for the right bike :)

Think you missed a surface tag off 13182286! Just noticed cycle.travel was routing a Trans-American rider along a rubbishy dirt track :(

(2015, not 2005. This is ancient history but not _that_ ancient ;) )

Thread way back in 2005 in which a clever chap for whom I have the utmost respect posted "These relations could probably be truncated to just the diverging aspects":

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-January/014115.html

Hi - good to see the mapping you've been doing in this area! Is this an officially signposted cycle route?