I think you probably want to direct your questions to the person who mapped the greenway, mostly as highway=cycleway. As you can see there are no v1s in this changeset, which was just tidying a relation that was in a problematic state.

Sigh.

Hi, good to see your contributions. This massive edit looks like it should have gone through the Automated Edit Policy process - could you point to where this happened?

cheers
Richard

Ah yes - if it's a blue background then it's regional (bit confusing as the stickers do say NCN, but basically it's a Regional Route which is part of the National Cycle Network)!

Thank you. Reported at https://twitter.com/richardf/status/1363909152582627328 .

"now i get blamed for that" - yes, because MapRoulette doesn't give you carte blanche to break stuff just because some rando who uploaded a challenge says so.

Maproulette is not infallible, and in this case is wrong. Can you provide a link to the Maproulette challenge?

This is silly. Of course a Facebook page is a website. It's delivered over HTTP (the "web") and accessible on a consistent, unchanging URL ("site"). It is none of our business whether a company has chosen to use Facebook, Wix, Squarespace, Wordpress or any other off-the-shelf hosting/design solution for their site.

By doing this, you are making it significantly less likely that data consumers will make use of mappers' contributions. For example, on cycle.travel, I show cyclists the website tag for a ferry (where available) so that they can look up current times of operation, charges, etc. I use the website tag for this. Under your change, I'd have to fall back to scanning every contact:* tag to see whether any of them begins with /https?:\/\//. Pretty obviously, lots of consumers aren't going to do this, so you've just made OSM data less accessible.

Please (a) stop doing this (b) go outside and do some useful mapping (c) in future, discuss mass changes like this in advance. Thank you.

Hi! As I understand it this is either national route 585, or regional route 55. National route 55 is somewhere else entirely (Telford-Stoke-Macclesfield-Manchester way). Do you know how this Redditch-Birmingham route is currently signed?

If you tag it with a bad surface tag then any halfway decent router will know to route around it. Similarly for roads - anything with (say) highway=trunk, maxspeed=70 mph, oneway=yes should set alarm bells ringing with the router. Certainly cycle.travel (my site) will do the right thing in both of these cases and I'm pretty sure CycleStreets will as well.

Hi Tom - great to see the work you've been doing.

bicycle=dismount indicates a legal restriction, i.e. whether dismounting is required. It's not for signifying surface quality. (After all, someone might want to ride along here on an MTB or a gravel bike.)

Best thing to do would be to reinstate the bicycle=yes tag and then use tags such as osm.wiki/Tag:surface=, tracktype= or smoothness= to indicate the surface quality.

Thanks! Some of it seems really very busy to be a safe cycle route but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hello - is the N2 really a signposted bicycle route?

If it's "not possible to drive" there's two things to break out:

* "drive" implies motor vehicles - so any access tag change should be "motor_vehicle=" rather than "access=".

* this is a very narrow (and badly maintained) road, so I can see that it could be difficult to drive, but access tags are strictly for stuff that is _illegal_ to drive. If "not possible" means that a car can't physically get through, it's better to use surface and width tags rather than access tags.

I've cycled this and it's definitely not a private gate. Removed access=private.

@ndm: wait, what? There are several fixmes in this changeset.

I mean, honestly, go ahead and revert this if it'll make your day. It'll make OSM on balance significantly worse, but you do you.

Right, so if it was a horse stile it would be barrier=horse_stile, not barrier=stile.

I'm at a loss to understand your point, I'm afraid. At the very worst interpretation then this is correcting something evidently wrong (a stile on a bridleway) to something less wrong. That's how OSM works, it iterates towards completeness. If you want to take the next step towards making it even better than that's great!

No, it isn't a mechanical edit at all. If you can do mechanical edits with Potlatch 2 then I'd be impressed to find out how ;)

Bridleways don't have stiles - bridleways are RoWs that are open to horses and bikes, which can't cope with stiles. If there's a stile on a bridleway then I've tried to move it to the side (which you do see sometimes, where there's a gate and a stile adjacent) or onto the adjacent way where it was clearly meant for a joining footpath but had been mistakenly placed on the junction node. If there's one I missed reinstating then let me know!

(Oxford was, of course, one of the first cities to be mapped in detail in OSM.)

Oxford High Street is a similar situation - an important road where cars are forbidden but buses are allowed. It has been consistently mapped as highway=tertiary since 2007. Sorry Kovoschiz, but your assertions really aren't in keeping with OSM precedence.

way/2988061

I'm not saying it's different; I'm just talking about UK mapping practice here because this changeset is in the UK. FWIW, there are plenty of shared-use ways in (off the top of my head) France and the US which are tagged with highway=cycleway.

There really are precious few cycle-only paths in the UK - I don't recall ever encountering one and I run a cycling website! - but if you do encounter one, you simply tag it with highway=cycleway, foot=no.