Hi, that tagging isn't needed as bus access is assumed as yes on roads.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164312377

Hey, just an FYI, 1370305563 isn't actually a parking area so I've removed it, it's just unused dirt next to the petrol station.

I've restored the way and removed the node in changeset/164277015

I'd generally still keep any that are mapped as ways, more detail is always better than less, and the inconsistency just shows where improvements can be made for anyone who's interested.

Hi, just wondering why the node was left but the way was removed? I would have thought it would be better to keep the more detailed way and remove the node as redundant?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164274441

The options in iD are a simplified version to try and help, but access tagging is generally best to be specific unless there's no access allowed regardless of method of travel.

I'd recommend reading some of the wiki pages around access tagging.

Please show respect to other mappers.

If the path doesn't exist at all, then yes, it can be removed, but it's best tagged with a lifestyle prefix instead to show that and prevent it being mapped again. If it does exist, then it should remain and be tagged appropriately, as mentioned.

There's more than just cyclists using OSM, it's a geospatial database with many uses. We map what's on the ground.

The best option is to specifically mark what isn't allowed, unless nothing is allowed.

Agai, we have tagging to indicate a private road or trail, and that should be used.

Your edit did nothing to remove bike lane tagging. And again, if it exists, then the tagging needs to remain. I'd suggest taking your issues up with whoever is responsible for that road to remove the bike lane entirely, or widen it sufficiently, but if one is there, then it should remain in OSM.

If it's not a bike lane and is just a line on the side of the road then sure, the bike lane tagging can be removed, but you need to state that and not say you're removing it because it's not wide enough. If there's anything indicating a bike lane is there regardless of width, then the tagging should remain.

Because that is what OpenStreetMap does, some people may find value in that information. You can mark them as access=private to reflect that, but if you delete them, someone will likely just map them again.

The wiki article below has some good information on this.
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Some random person painting a "bike lane" would be pretty obvious and would have been removed. If the council, state or federal government has painted it, then one exists.

If it's a functioning bike lane then it should be mapped. From the looks of aerial imagery, which is all your edit mentions using, there's a bike lane there. If it doesn't actually exist then it's fine to be removed, but if it exists, it should stay.

If it is only 30cm wide then it's not a bike lane, but aerial imagery shows a standard width bike lane, not just a random line painted there.

If the bike lane exists, it should be mapped. There might be tags to describe details about it, but just removing it or marking it as non-existent even if it does exist is wrong. Making several incorrect edits that aren't correct because you're not happy with the real life situation isn't the way to handle it.

The edits you've made have several issues, and don't match up to your changeset comments. I'm happy to help correct your tagging, but the edit you made in this changeset stated that access to that path is illegal/prohibited, which isn't what you stated. What you want is horse=no and bicycle=no, and I'm happy to add those when I have some spare time, but removing the incorrect information that did exist is generally more of a priority to other mappers.

The change you made didn't make any difference to the bike lane tagging, and despite it being a major rode route, if the lane exist it should be tagged there.

All you did was remove what type of route was there, and removing the bike lane tagging would be considered vandalism by the community since it's intentionally removing correct information. As much as it may be a busy route, we map what exists on the ground, so if a bike lane is there, tagging that one isn't intentionally is just incorrect.

Hi, I've reverted this due to issues with the mapping, please see my changeset comments on the changes for more details. Happy for you to message me directly if you do need assistance with any of the tagging I've reverted.

changeset/164233798

Hi, I've reverted this due to issues with the mapping, please see my changeset comments on the changes for more details. Happy for you to message me directly if you do need assistance with any of the tagging I've reverted.

changeset/164233798