Hi alester, could you confirm your source for the bicycle access on this paved trail? Local knowledge? Survey? Something else?

It often takes weeks or months to come to consensus on these things. I will not delete the proposed routes you've added for the time being, but I think it's only fair to warn you that I think that deletion will be the likely outcome.

I find the damage you've done to the Trans-Canada Trail more troublesome.

I'm not satisfied with the changes to the Trans-Canada Trail that you've made. The fact that your facebook group hasn't complained about them is irrelevant. I've not gotten any complaints here about my facebook posts either.

There are disadvantages to organizing outside of the usual OSM channels like that. I don't expect OSM editors will give much weight to the opinions of a facebook group. I know I don't.

It would be far better to use OSM communication tools, like the mailing lists, help.osm.org, and the wiki.

A link between your regular account and this one would also be a good idea. If nothing else, it would defend you against accusations of sockpuppetery.

I'm still of the opinion that ridewithgps or similar websites.

Oh, and I think you misunderstood the comment about signage on the route. They weren't suggesting random individuals put up signage, which would be vandalism. But that appropriate organizations put up signage.

I think developing these routes is a very useful thing, but I'm not convinced that OSM is the place to do it.

I see that you had been informed about potential issues with the approach you are taking previous to my message more recently (changeset/88962380). I think it would be wise to stop adding these routes you are developing on facebook until there is more consensus about whether or not these recommended routes are appropriate for OSM.

Keep up the hard work on ridewithgps, or similar sites like that. I'm sure lots of people will find it useful.

I see the confusion. The route isn't designed for cyclists for the entire network. But many sections are designed for cyclists. Many multi-use routes are represented on OSM by multiple route relations. The sections that are for bicycles are contained in a bicycle relation, the ones for foot are contained in a foot relation. I suppose other uses (like horseback) could be contained in other relations, but I do not have experience with this. I had thought we had two relations in BC, one for bicycle, and one for foot. Did you delete the relation for foot, by any chance?

I would like to keep the sections that are open to bikes in their relation, and the sections that are open to foot likewise in their relation.

Also I'm not convinced that linking to your own posts on facebook is useful.

This edit changes the Trans-Canada Trail back to being classified exclusively as a foot route. I see that this user has made *extensive* changes to the Trans-Canada Trail in the 6 weeks they have been signed up with OSM. They have twice changed it from a bicycle route, to a hiking route, despite this relation existing as a bike route for almost 10 years. It is important to realize that while the Trans-Canada Trail may not be a bicycle route in it's entirety, the sections that had been in this relation were specifically for bicycles. Many of those sections have been removed, and replaced by foot sections, but other parts are cycleways and remain in this relation.

I would ask the user "Bike Across Canada Route Network" to refrain from making any more edits to the Trans-Canada Trail (aka The Great Trail) until other editors can figure out what has been changed, and if it was appropriate and accurately reflects the situation on the ground. I'm concerned that some of the edits might be construed as vandalism, especially as you seem to be promoting alternative trans-Canada routes.

It totally makes sense, I also think the Trans-Canada trail has many issues too. Even the parts of it that are a bike route are often poor. I think that developing new routes publicly, with many adjustments is a good thing.

All that said, I'm not sure if it is in keeping with the OSM policies or within OSM's scope. My understanding was that the purposed tag was for routes that have been officially purposed, not for active crowdsourced projects in development.

So they are crowd sourced routes of convention, not officially defined ones? Would it be fair to call them recommended routes?

I'm unclear what this "route 1" is. At present, are you actively developing it with a group on facebook?

Small world!

I"ll bet the right thing to do would be tag sections as pedestrian and parts as service. Although I've always been bothered by how the `highway=pedestrian` is used for such a wide variety of very different ways from something like The Mall in Shimla, to the galees in varanasi.

Is "Suffering Moses" a houseboat? I stayed in a houseboat right by Zero Bridge. I think it's a great part of town to stay in. Convenient location, and it's great being able to walk on and off a houseboat w/o needing a Shikar.

I'd love to go back, but don't feel good about the political situation in the near future. It wasn't great in 2016 either, and most of my mapping in the valley has been done from the imagery, with very little done from the ground, with the exception of a bit around Zero Bridge, Boulevard Road, and the way to Sonamarg, because I didn't spend much time in the Valley.

Hi Arun, wanted to let you know that I have changed the tagging of a way you tagged as `highway=pedestrian`, back to `=service`. Based on your edit summary, I think you based the tag on the satellite imagery. I visited Srinagar in 2016, and came this way. At the time, some of the road was too narrow for cars, other parts are accessible to cars, and all of it is open for bicycles and motorcycles. I feel that service is a better classification.

I wanted to let you know, in case you had more up to date information than me. Also, I should point out that I did not go West of Zero Bridge.

My changeset: changeset/88743579

Let me know if you feel I've made a mistake, and we can fix it.

Thanks!

link: changeset/87866102

Thanks for the comment. I do think it is a bit of a grey area, because I agree with your first interpretation that `highway=track` is appropriate even if it isn't publicly accessible. The thing is that this is only very rarely accessed by Metro Vancouver Parks trucks. I think I have seen one there too, but it's very unusual. And it is very common to use this as a trail. That is why I feel that it is more appropriate to tag this as a trail. Not because it's *wrong* to tag it as a track, just that it's far more accurate to tag it as a trail, and more helpful to the vast majority of users.

I'm at my computer now, so I'll change it back to trail.

Hi Mark, I see you have updated the tagging of Twin Bridges Trail. I totally agree, that it is wide and gravel. It seems to me that it is not used as a road, and based on its use we can more accurately tag it as a trail. Are you basing its classification based solely on it's width?

This edit was just in the immediate vicinity of Fraser River Park, but did change some of the river bank traces.

Thanks for such a useful edit summery. I only noticed the name change now, and was glad to have it explained.

Here's a proper link to the changeset that introduced the errors: changeset/86894976

Hello and welcome to OSM VancouverHistoricalPhotos! Thanks for contributing. I'm just a normal volunteer here, just like you, but I've been doing it for a while now, and wanted to let you know that this edit has introduced some errors in the a section of the cycleway. (here: way/336803184) You removed the tags that marked it as a cycleway, so it just looked like an old railway track, even though there it was converted to a bicycle path a few years back.

I hope you continue to edit, but please do be careful about introducing errors.

I have fixed it with my recent edit: changeset/87048728

Hi thanks for paying attention, and seeing my note. I added the note from my phone, while cycling past, and I got the location a bit off. I then added the bench in the proper location, and forgot about the note... I've deleted the bench you added, because I put the note on the wrong side of the trail.

Sorry for the confusion.