Thanks!

(I suspect the "road" that's shown on satnavs might actually be the one a short way to the west via Foxholes Farm, which has the width of a road but a very rough surface, and the actual right of way status is unclear.)

Hi. In this changeset you've changed way/35028249#map=16/51.8841/-1.6228 from a bridleway to a path. I was there yesterday and it is definitely signed as a bridleway. Could you shed any light?

You're misunderstanding.

Tags do not cascade down from relations to ways. That isn't how OSM works. Relations are distinct entities that describe themselves.

Your relation is a route relation. It describes a route that follows some ways. It does not describe those ways themselves.

Access is specified by tags on ways.

I'm hesitant to do the whole "appeal to authority" thing, but as the third longest-standing contributor to OSM still active (since November 2004) and the developer of the site that probably does more in-depth tag parsing than any other (cycle.travel), I honestly do know what I'm talking about here. Thank you.

Hi Bill - basically if you tag something as "highway=path" as you did, you're just saying "this is a path". You're not giving any information about who can use it.

You need to add bicycle=yes and foot=yes on the way to make it clear. Route relations are additional information; they don't obviate the need to have the correct way tagging.

In the route relations in particular, note that the semicolon-separated style you've used ("route=hiking;bicycle;foot") is idiosyncratic and undocumented, and most renderers/routers will not understand it.

Thanks for all your work! :)

(Sorry - should add that the same is true of retagging as highway=unclassified - in developed countries this generally means a paved road, so adding highway=unpaved/gravel/dirt/whatever if it's unpaved is really helpful. Obviously lots of unpaved roads round this area :) )

Hi,

Great to see the cleanup work you've been doing!

If you remove tiger:reviewed from an unpaved road, could you make sure to add a surface tag? Otherwise it's impossible to tell whether the road is paved or unpaved, and that breaks bike routing among other things.

cheers
Richard

Hi - by changing this from highway=cycleway to highway=path, you've destroyed the information that bikes are allowed to use this path. I've repaired those that I can see by adding bicycle=yes, but could you check all those you edited? Thank you.

Thanks.

This is what's called a "modal filter" - where a road has been stopped up to through motor traffic, but is still available for bikes and pedestrians.

In cases like this in urban areas of the UK, you should always default to highway=cycleway rather than highway=footway.

I've fixed this instance but would appreciate it if you could review your previous edits, and use highway=cycleway in the future. Thank you!

Hi - why have you changed this into a highway=footway rather than a highway=cycleway?

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