It shouldn't really be in OSM if it's not signposted. There are thousands of "my favourite cycle ride" routes out there in books, magazines, etc., often named.

At the very least it needs to be tagged as unsigned. Otherwise routers with turn-by-turn directions will say things like "Turn left onto Bio Velo Route", which is actively confusing if there aren't any signs. unsigned=yes on the relation is good for this.

But I agree with Karthoo, really it shouldn't be in OSM.

No, highway=secondary is used for B roads in the UK. If you want to reverse a convention of over 15 years then please ask the talk-gb mailing list.

Hi - thanks for your contributions. Bikes have a legal access right to use this track, even if it's impractical to ride it. "bicycle=no" would mean that bikes aren't allowed and as such it's not the right tag to use here.

The best way to fix this is to make sure that the surface tags are accurate, reflecting the reality that bikes are allowed but it's impractical.

You may of course find that a different app/website does a better job of choosing a suitable route for touring bikes than the one you used!

Hi,

You've changed a bunch of roads from highway=tertiary to highway=residential.

The problem with this is that "highway=residential, tiger:reviewed=no" is indistinguishable from the millions of impassable tracks imported from TIGER that have the same tagging (e.g. way/14539476).

Obviously they all need fixing, but that will take many years, so until then it's best to use a distinct tag combination to note that this road _has_ been reviewed and is indeed a paved residential road. This will allow bike routers, for example, to tell the difference between this and the raw TIGER tracks.

I'd suggest adding "surface=paved" would be best but, failing that, you could just remove "tiger:reviewed=no" to indicate that you have reviewed the road.

cheers
Richard

Hello Jun - Could you clarify what you mean by "an old street view"? We're not allowed to use Google Street View as a source (or indeed any other source less than 70 years old without explicit permission).

Indeed, this is just wrong: the "City of Leicester" administrative area is not the same as "Leicester".

@borovac, UK administrative boundaries and naming is really complex, and I'd suggest it's probably not the easiest thing to tackle from Serbia unless you have a full understanding of them. I wouldn't try to fix tagging of Serbian administrative boundaries!

Ok, thanks, but you still don't need to add "name:it=Worcestershire" etc. It already says "name=Worcestershire". You don't need to duplicate it in lots of extra tags, one for each language - just add a language-specific name where it differs from the standard name= tag (and is attested as differing).

Hi,

Why have you added all these names?

1. This isn't Worcester (which is a city), it's Worcestershire (which is a county). This would be like taking the relation for California and adding "name:sk=Sacramento".

2. You don't need to add translated names where they don't differ from the main name tag.

3. Some of these look like plain transliterations. OSM doesn't store transliterations, they can be derived automatically.

Hi Mauro, in this changeset you've removed a large section of the EuroVelo 1 route (from Calzadilla de los Barros to Galisteo) - was that intentional?

(Just as a datapoint, mapping as a separate adjacent cycleway, within the road envelope, is currently 24 times more popular by way length than adding a cycleway=track (or similar) tag to a non-cycleway highway. Figures taken from cycle.travel's rendering database, restricted to the UK, calculated using PostGIS.)

So how is this different from the two road carriageways, which are also both part of the highway, yet which are mapped as separate ways? I'm failing to understand the distinction you're drawing here and would like to.

(oneway:bicycle=no, I mean. Need more coffee at this time in the morning)

That's not how OSM has worked for 15+ years. OSM iterates towards more detail, not less. By removing the separate cycleway you are destroying detail.

We map the two carriageways (which have physical separation) as separate ways. There is no reason why a cycleway, which is also physically separated, should be different. A paint-only bike _lane_, yes, but this isn't a bike lane, it's a separate track with 1m+ of physical separation (kerb + grass verge). I remember having a conversation with Steve Coast outside a London pub in 2005 about whether OSM should map dual carriageways as two separate ways or single ones. He said "two"; I said "one"; he was right and I was wrong, and that's how OSM has worked ever since.

Anyone who downloads a GPX from any bike routing site will get a track that directs them along the main A555 carriageway. That's somewhere between "not helpful" and "actively dangerous".

Cartographic generalisation can remove detail (e.g. by "skeletonise" operations for dual carriageways) but it can't put back detail which has been omitted. There's no way to accurately reconstruct the geometry of the cycleway from an "integral part of the highway" approach.

It doesn't help that the previous mapping is just factually wrong - you have highway=trunk, oneway=yes, oneway:bicycle=yes. That means "this is a trunk road on which bikes are allowed to cycle in both directions" - in other words, cyclists are allowed on the main carriageway against the flow of traffic. It's a few years since I've been on the A555 (I used to have family in Bramhall) but my recollection is that would be a one-way trip to the funeral parlour...

Please don't do this. It deletes useful information (the geometry of the cycle way), makes it harder to add additional tagging (e.g. width and surface) without extensive namespacing which basically nothing consumes, and makes it less useful for routers and renderers.

Hi,

Mapping this as highway=service is a bit misleading unless you also add access tags to say that the general public is forbidden (which presumably they are).

Hi Gordon,

This looks interesting - are these cycle routes signposted somehow?

Richard

Hello - in this changeset, you seem to have dropped a vast amount of nodes with ele, time and hdop tags but nothing useful in them. Could you remove them please? Thank you!

motor_vehicle=discouraged is a much better tag from a bike routing point of view!

Yes, this relation (not "relationship") is a bicycle route relation. The one you've pointed to is a railway relation.

Probably needs reverting given that the contributor is unresponsive and it was an undiscussed automated edit.