Hi! Great to see the work you've been doing and thanks in particular for adding surface tags - these make a big difference.

I'd suggest you have a bit of a look at best practice elsewhere on highway classifications. highway=primary certainly shouldn't be used for unpaved county roads in the US - it's used for US routes and for the most important State routes. For unpaved roads you'll almost always want highway=unclassified, or highway=tertiary at a pinch if it's a very good quality one (but this is most applicable in the Midwest where there are few other roads).

Paved county roads could be highway=tertiary or highway=unclassified - a good road with a centreline is more likely to be =tertiary.

Richard

Hi! Great to see the work you've been doing. In this edit, you seem to have deleted the highway=cycleway tag from the trail. This means that, without a highway tag, the trail won't be usable for rendering (map display) or routing. Consequently I've restored highway=cycleway, which is the correct tag for a multi-use trail like this.

Richard

I'm reasonably sure there is no copyright infringement in making factual observations from a non-creative video with minimal sweat-of-the-brow involved. So, as you were.

Hi! Great to see all the work you've been doing on Eurovelo routes.

Could I ask that you change the "status=proposed route" to "state=proposed"? The latter is the standard way of tagging a proposed route. At present the route is showing up on cycle maps (e.g. cycling.waymarkedtrails.org, cycle.travel) as an operational route because they don't understand the tag you've used.

Hi - great to see the work you've been doing. A county road is almost never a highway=primary - that's used for US Highways and the most important State Routes. I've altered the tagging here accordingly.

Where are the centreline, road edge markings, two-car width, and significant populated places on way/653677282 ?

I've cycled along that road. Have you visited it?

Life is honestly too short to deal with this sort of bullshit. Thanks for the lecture on what OSM is, it had somehow escaped me in the 15 years I've been involved in the project.

Faced with this sort of muppetry it's generally quicker and easier to hardcode in a workaround, and though obviously I don't actually mind the result being that cycle.travel will be the only router that can follow the Ciclovia Alpe-Adria, you might want to consider whether your misguided concept of purity is hurting or helping OSM.

I see it's now open! http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/news/article/1976/worcestershire_s_newest_footbridge_now_open

Took another look from the train today and there are blue signs up with red patches, so I presume NCN 442 and NCN 45 have now been rerouted across the bridge. Not sure which route they take at either end though.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciclovia_Alpe_Adria : "Da qui con il treno navetta in 11 minuti si raggiunge Mallnitz (1.191 m), e quindi di nuovo in bicicletta si attraversa la Carinzia toccando Spittal a. d. Drau, Villach e Arnoldstein, al confine italo-austriaco"

https://www.alpe-adria-radweg.com/en/bahn-rad/unterwegs-am-alpe-adria-radweg-von-salzburg-nach-grado/ (the official site): "At the end of Gastein Valley, you will have to use the 'Tauernschleuse' motorail service (Böckstein – Mallnitz) in order to reach the south side of the main Alpine divide"

https://italy-cycling-guide.info/international-cycle-routes/ciclovia-alpe-adria-radweg/ : "it heads through the Gasteinertal towards Bad Gastein and Böckstein where you pick up the Tauerntunnel motorrail shuttle that takes you to Mallnitz"

There is literally no other way to get from Böckstein to Mallnitz other than a 160km detour involving significant backtracking. If you don't think the route does follow the rail shuttle, which way do you think it does go?

Bike routes in OSM have included ferries since time immemorial. Trains are less common but no different in practice. I put code specifically in cycle.travel to cope with routes like this.

See https://www.alpe-adria-radweg.com/en/ - it's very definitely an official part of the route.

Hi,

Could you explain why you've removed the railway from the bike route relation?

The bike route requires going on the train. It's an integral part of the route so should be included in the relation.

Removing the railway has broken routing on cycle.travel for this route. :(

Richard

thank **** for that

Wow - just spotted this incredibly detailed bit of mapping. Hats off!

Nice work! Just spotted this on the Rails-to-Trails group on Facebook and wondered if it had been mapped… delighted to see it has :)

Thanks \o/

I suggest maybe using a proper editor like iD instead of JOSM which is well-known for breaking data like this

<runs away very very fast>

Joshua - you need to fix your router. Blacklisting barrier=* will fail unexpectedly in lots of other places: for example, the edges of central London had anti-terrorist barriers (actually just little checkpoint booths) which were tagged as barrier=checkpoint nodes for many months.

The only way to parse barrier= nodes is to blacklist a defined list of values and assume everything else is ok. Believe me, I've been through this with getting cycle.travel's routing working. :)

Hi Lewis,

Great to see the edits you've been doing!

In this one you (accidentally I guess) deleted a cycleway alongside the road. This means that it's harder for bike maps and routing sites to show the best way. In particular, it's broken the continuous route of National Cycle Network route 8 (the cross-Wales route, Lon Las Cymru).

Generally you should be reluctant to delete stuff from OSM - it's usually been put there for a reason even if that's not obvious! You can leave changeset comments like this if you want to ask an editor what they were doing.

I've fixed the NCN 8 cycleway route for now.

Best wishes
Richard

I'm not aware of any convention in the UK that "request stops" are always tagged as railway=halt. The UK railway system doesn't really have a clear distinction between station and halt as some other countries do.

(FWIW a station can't really be a "request stop" because stopping by request is an attribute of a train service rather than of a station. Usually if one service stops by request then all do, but it's not always the case!)

Hi - you've added a lot of place=town nodes here, but they don't really seem appropriate for the features in question and they duplicate existing information. For example, there's already a place=village name for Cranberry - you don't need to add a duplicate place=town. Because these are small places they're better mapped in OSM as villages.

Could I suggest you revert the changes?

Best wishes -- Richard