Your first request seems a little contradictory: if I should end bike lanes at pedestrian crossings, then I will *always* need to split ways on the traffic_signals node, since in Zürich the tagging scheme is usually combined traffic_signals and crossing. I don't mind ending the bike lanes before intersections, but it does cause many more splits of ways, since each way between 2 intersections becomes 3 ways (no lanes > lanes > no lanes).

The problem with the cycleway=track is twofold: a) shared bicycle/foot without separation shouldn't be represented by it (because it's defined as only covering dedicated separate bike tracks) and b) the footpath already is covering it in data, so keeping it is duplicate. The correct fix is to remove the cyclway=track, and correct the tags on the footpath to what is signed (shared bike/foot without separation, i.e. SSV sign 2.63.1). The tagging standards for Switzerland on the wiki say to use highway=footway bicycle=designated for this sign, which is why I tagged it that way and not with highway=path (which is my personal preference). I haven't been tagging with ID presets btw, but according to this local wiki page.

Could you be more careful when reverting?

FYI, this revert broke the bicycle route relations. Also, it's not clear to me why you reverted the bicycle lanes on Selnaustrasse (they do exist), nor the corrected tagging of the cycleways on Stauffacherbrücke.

I intend to restore these edits unless you have some good reason why they shouldn't be mapped.

Thanks for the history lesson - I had no idea Allmend used to be a military area :)

Honestly, it seems to me all 3 tags are deficient. "track" is defined as roads built for for agricultural/forestry/etc., which this isn't really. "service" is defined as roads proving access to a specific place, which this doesn't (if it were signed "Zubringerdienst gestattet" then service would be much more acceptable). "path" is defined as being for non-motorised vehicles, which applies to the current use of this bridge, but not to the construction standard (I hadn't considered this before, because I didn't realise it was constructed to a high standard).

I think "track" is the most easy to defend: this bridge, and the roads through Allmend, are very much like Waldstrasse or Wirtschaftsweg, despite now only being used for leisure, and it reflects that it was originally constructed with capacity for heavy vehicles. Otherwise I would use "path" with "width=3.5", but this doesn't capture the construction character properly. I think "service" is least good.

Sorry for the long comment, and sorry about the English: reading German is ok, with the help of a dictionary; writing coherent German is still a struggle.

> Ich hatte auch schon Rückmeldungen von Mappern, dass 'use_sidepath" nicht funktioniert oder ignoriert wird. Ich meide dies deswegen.

Do you mean foot=use_sidepath (use_sidepath isn't a valid value for sidewalk per wiki)? I think they mean slightly different things: foot=use_sidepath marks a legal duty to walk on the sidewalk. sidewalk=separate only means there is a sidewalk on this road, mapped as a separate way; on roads where walking on them is allowed *and* there is a sidewalk (Begnugungszonen, perhaps?) use_sidepath would be wrong.

> Ich möchte die OSM-Welt nicht auf den Kopf stellen. Aber du bist forscher. Tipp: wir brauchen nicht 'sidewalk=*" (no|both|left|right|separate), sondern sidewalk:left=* und sidewalk:right=*, mit den Werten (no|yes|mapped[_separate] – oder 'explicit').

The wiki documents it as sidewalk=left/right/both/none, and unlike you say I don't want to boldly establish new tagging schemes. The wiki does provide for sidewalk:left/right, but only for extra attributes, not for existence, as far as I can see. TagInfo backs this up, there are many more instances of, e.g. sidewalk=right than sidewalk:right=yes, even if one thinks the latter is a cleaner scheme.

> Ratonale: even a very, very stupid, or lazy programmed Renderer, can tell, that there's some kind of sidewalk (left or right), even it's not mapped or tagged properly, separately.

I welcome you to try ;) The OSM state of the art unfortunately does not make this so easy, especially in edge cases where there are multiple sidewalks. This is precisely why the hint value of "separate" exists, to stop people assuming that the nearest separately-mapped sidewalk must be a duplicate of the sidewalk tagged on the road.

I came to the conclusion after sending the original comment, that it would be a Sisyphean task to keep the tags consistent, and separate ways only seems to be the way forward, even if it goes against the recommendation to tag directly abutting sidewalks only on the street way.

I'm not sure this is right. See https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=47.350975000000005&lng=8.520177777777803&z=17&pKey=F7DwYLusmZiLNoVCfmaWEQ&x=0.24543601761529255&y=0.5714318804435264&zoom=2.6463654223968565&focus=photo. It's a little hard to make out in this photo, but you can see there is an island of grass with an apparently immovable pole right in the middle and a bollard behind it, that the path splits around. Each half of the path on either side is too narrow to be used by multi-track vehicles. I have been there myself by bike many times.

When you add sidewalks as separate ways, you might want to re-tag the existing sidewalk=both to sidewalk=separate on the main street way, if present, or just delete the sidewalk= tag. I am investigating rendering of the sidewalk= tag, but it is problematic when a sidewalk is tagged both on the street way and as a separate way.

See way/28938433 for a similar example of an unsigned pedestrian space near Bürkliplatz, also tagged this way.

Sorry, didn't meant to tag a legal Fussgängerzone, just that in front of the Badi is a large pedestrian plaza. How would you tag that?

re: highway=traffic_signals, see highway=traffic_signals#Tagging_also_cycleway_traffic_signals. This is clearly the case that should be followed when there are explicit footways, too. Note how the traffic signals are marked at the stop line for each way.

Also, marking the crossings where cars have traffic lights as highway=traffic_signal but not the ones where only pedestrians have lights breaks rendering, at least on cyclemap: https://imgur.com/ZqzCNhz

See how only one of each pair of crossings are marked with the crossing circle?

The split of the road is definitely wrong per wiki. The bike track is duplicated and should either be tagged as cycleway=track on the road, or as a separate way, but not both. The right turn for bikes at the traffic light is not allowed anymore: the traffic light covers both directions now. And for the traffic lights: the wiki says not to do it the way it was, if there is direction tags, because it is ambiguous.