Hi, in such cases when pedestrians and cyclists are on the same path, you shouldn't create two paths. You should add one path which can be used both by cyclists and pedestrians.

In this case, such path already exists!
Only problem is that it's a highway=footway, which isn't very good. But because of bicycle=designated access tag cyclists are allowed to use it.

I'll rollback this change. And change highway value to path.

You can find more info on mapping cycling infrastructure in the wiki
osm.wiki/Bicycle

and here
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-cycleways-in-estonia/104894

You can also add a boom barrier / lift gate to the entrance and select appropriate access on the parking lot, if it's private or only for customers, if you want.

Hi, welcome!

highway=service shouldn't stop where parking starts, it should go inside. Routing software does not route through parking lots, so the initial position of this way was correct.

There was also a parking before, but marked not as area, but a node at the tip of the highway. It still exists. You should remove it. You can do it either
1) By clicking on feature type and selecting "Point"
2) Removing it in "Tags" section

I've seen it. I think maybe a narrow area? At least artwork_type supports it by wiki. Or maybe map each sculpture individually? New aerial imagery allows it now. IMO one node is good enough too.

Not sure many consumers will consume artwork as a way :/

Thanks. While I don't completely agree, I've added bicycle and foot designated.

Smoothness could be added, but I don't remember it well enough to add it from memory right now. If I remember correctly, there is a problem of the path being very different depending on going on the right or left side.

Maybe mtb:scale=0 is also applicable.

It's ok. Please don't accept my attacks personally too, they are more directed at Tallinn's road dept. constantly messing up and creating such a sitiuation. I just want to make something better than they have.

What genuinely is unsettling, is us repeating the same things over and over. Doesn't look like our opinions will change.

Let's wait for a different opinion.

BTW, @Tormi, we have a heated discussion here and are in need of third opinion. It would be much appreciated. But also don't feel obliged to get into such details.

changeset/144441885

I don't believe this is a plausible scenario. Incompetent decision is as they do now - cycleway on paper, bad path in reality.

More plausible is that this path is improved and there is no controversy here anymore.

You can keep ignoring my arguments made from practical point of view. But if you trust Tallinn transport dept. that much, then remove cycling possibility from Vana-Kalamaja in North direction - no way those smart people could have put a cycleway markings and a 331 sign together by mistake on a new street. Mark all pedestrian ways around Kristiine junction as designated - they are so blue on Tallinn's map. Oh, and don't forget to personally remove pedestrian sign from Kase street in Maarjamäe - it's not vandalism if it's on Tallinn's map!

We aren't getting anywhere and only useful feedback was from Pikse so far. Maybe this discussion entertains you, but I'm done with it.

@Pikse (or anyone else), if you could invest a bit of your time in this problem, consider arguments, maybe check out the path in question and give a final "vote" at some point, it would be very appreciated as we have a 1 vs 1 stalemate here.

It doesn't prohibit routing through it. I don't see it as a problem. Actually, it's an advantage that for routers this will have a higher cost, because it reflects the truth of this part being harder. No normal router prohibits cycling on paths.

I don't believe every intersection with a path requires signage, but this place is special as I've already pointed out.

>However, I don't think Kitsarööpa tee falls into this category.

It does fall into this category since I'm an individual.

This designed vs designated is actually a good point.

But consider this: they would never install signs here, because it would be seen as a total failure to create bicycle infrastructure, but the signage is intentionally vague to have a cycleway on paper and a bad path with a stream running through it in reality.

There are many instances where Tallinn's map lies about cycleway connectivity and even marks paths explicitly signed as a footway as cycleways.

Since there can be different interpretations of signs,, I removed the tag to reflect my understanding of reality one type of path turn into a different one.

But if multiple people vote to have this as designated on the map, we can change it back.

The downsides I see are:
* It's hard to correctly tag problems with this path, as there is channel made by water along it, but if there are no other people, you can ride on a narrow part not affected by it.
* Many simple routers won't take into account other tags or won't take into account all of them, while a path where cycling is not forbidden and surface isn't ideal is simple enough.
* We are copying maps made for a political benefit to hide problems. It reduces trust in osm and usefulness of osm as an independent source of data for end users. It works against promoting building bicycle infrastructure, as apparently this is good enough.
* Since it's harder to consume data if we put bicycle=designated, less protected and able people are at risk here (and they probably don't have a strava account).

Are you ok with those? I have yet to hear what we gain by it.

And also is it designed as one. It's clearly not designed and clearly isn't remotely as safe for all ages and abilities as actual infrastructure.

I've mapped where it ends and don't see why you are asking.

Only at this point, after the bridge, where it's clearly not bicycle infrastructure. There is a sudden change of surface, smoothness, width and safety and the path stops possessing any qualities of being intentionally designed for bicycles. After the descent it gets wide and more safe for everyone again.

Only the first one is important here and I disagree. I do not define it as kergliiklustee or "jalgratta- ja jalgtee".

There are many paths connected to it, but they don't become bicycle=designated just by being connected to it. Same as this small part is connected to parts which are bicycle-pedestrian ways, but it doesn't become bicycle=designated. Same as the thing teeregister calls Kitsarööpa doesn't have the same surface or width in all of it's parts, this part is not bicycle=designated, while others are.

I've presented my arguments and I'm not backing down from using wiki definition of bicycle=designated. I don't see this discussion going anywhere. If you wish to continue you can bring this to wider OSM community and this may change my opinion.

It doesn't matter

1) This is a different place, I don't question the tags there, only on this small part of the path
2) I've brought this argument as why it's not designed for cycling since it's impeded there and pedestrians can create a dangerous situation when a cyclist uses front break without thinking and looses traction on descent while making a turn.

bicycle=designated tag does not describe how often it's used

I'm leaving it as is, which is being tagged according to wiki.

What would be the benefit of having bicycle designated there?

1) There are no signs.
2) It's narrow and used by pedestrians
3) It's a descent with a turn and unpaved surface which is not safe and cyclists with reduced coordination ability, such as elderly, can get seriously hurt. Not something you expect not on a track in city.
4) Routing is still available there as it's not forbidden to ride a bike there.

In conclusion reverting this change would contradict the description of designated value, which states that it must be specifically designed for bicycles and contradict "on the ground" rule.

We must show the truth, not copy incorrect Tallinn maps.

Two summers ago I ride along a national bike route on a loose gravel road where I've been constantly losing my balance and even got hurt when falling. On a hybrid bike. Was it a bicycle=designated road too, then?

I've removed cycleway from that part of the path

I agree. I don't even see segregation, but maybe imagery is outdated, bicycle parking looks a lot smaller there too.

I'd say there are cases when two ways are ok. When the road is segregated and really wide. Like here
way/858682902

or some parts here when they come together
way/1191470364

But in this case it looks strange.