Fixed, thanks for pointing that out

Hi, for for buildings should only be used for the name (and not descriptions) Instead of name="Office Building" you can change the building type to building=office (as I did for you in this case). Happy Mapping and feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Hi! I don't believe this section of road actually forbids non-motor traffic. Access restrictions only concern legal restrictions: the high speed limit, multiple lanes and lack of a sidewalk already indicate it is probably hostile to peds or bikes.

Ah, I see where the issue was, there were already two Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests with the same boundaries, and I removed the landuse=forest from the second one (as not the entire forest is landuse=forest) and didn't notice this was already duplicated. Anyway, it appears this has now been sorted out.

What routing engines have an issue with it? At least the default ones here just ignore it (osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=42.94178%2C-88.00443%3B42.94405%2C-87.99441#map=17/42.94281/-87.99957) Anyway, given the legal ambiguity, this makes sense to leave unset.

Hi PixelDubs,

highway=* tags should be on the individual ways, not on the route relation.

Happy mapping,
Alex

Hi!

Could you tell me the purpace of the nodes with the tag done=yes? (for example osm.org/node/10262869354)

Thanks!

Heh, it appear that this was added by mistake to the from the neighborhood map at UWM (it doesn't appear in the map index). Funnily enough, this is an interesting example of the places where OSM data is used: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/n/zoo-milwaukee-wi/ (I wonder what "young professionals" are living in the zoo...

I noticed you cut out the section of the Lincoln County forest with the wetland. While this makes sense, you also changed the boundry of the leisure=nature_reserve. Was this intentional?

Hi pitfire,

Keine Ahnung, es war schon so. Ich habe einfach highway=footway entfernt, weil es sich um ein ganz lineares Weg handelt.

What exactly was changed here?

Although it isn't signposted, it is legal if you look into local ordinances in the area. Of course, there is something to not mapping your local legislation, but in this case it is quite easy to verify that it is legal to bicycle on the sidewalks in New Berlin (and Brookfield, and many other suburbs, heck, Brookfield has bike routes on their sidewalks). In any case, it's often preferable to bicycle on the sidewalks in the suburbs over fighting with cars on the road., So this can be useful info imo

Should the sidewalks here also be tagged with access=private as well?

The issue with the Milwaukee "Bike Routes" is the maintainence on them is essentially non-existant. In general, bike routes should be able to be followed using the signage on the ground. If the city is actively maintaining them, then sure, but I don't think we should have unmaintained, unsigned routes, as this gives the wrong impression to user of OSM based cycle maps

Perhaps adding this section (and the section on 2nd street which still has the signs) to a relation with the tag disused:route=bicycle would be the way to best capture this.

Luckily Bing finally has some new streetside images, so this is very easy to verify :D It's definitely flush, and its essentially just a change of surface.

The cycle tracks which will be going up on Walnut, however, look like they'll be separated by a grass strip and those should definitely be separate ways when they get built.

I believe they were tagged correctly before.

highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated, segregated=yes is the tagging reccomended at least on this wiki page: osm.wiki/Bicycle#Miscellaneous

In either case, there is no physical separation between the cycleway and the sidewalk, so I think it's just segregated=yes, and not two separate ways.

I agree that definitely is should render considering how important it is to the city. I actually looked around at the various festival grounds around the world and found no good consensus. Considering it is primarily a space for cultural events, I still think that amenity=arts_centre is the best "rendering" tag. I definitely think it takes more than one ride to make a theme park, and it isn't the main focus of the grounds anyway :D

In regards to unrendered objects in general, I'm not certain how much you follow the OSM "lore", but recently there was this blog post about this issue of how the maintainers of Carto (the standard osm layer) are not rendering everything everyone wants to see: osm.org/user/Cristoffs/diary/399189 Just beware, it gets rather heated.

In general, we shouldn't tag for the renderer (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer). Nonetheless it is of course nice to choose a tag which renders, as these are usually tags which have broad community consensus anyway (which is the important part IMO) An
option which renders and is quite popular is osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Darts_centre , and I don't think that this would be stretching the definition too far :)

I don't think tagging it as a theme park is really the most accurate. In essence, it is a large outdoor venue hosting a variety of events (most notably the WI State Fair). I considered all the documented tags in the wiki, and amenity=exhibition_centre seemed to be the best descriptor of this, although, perhaps amenity=festival_grounds (probably more like the summerfest grounds, amenity=community_centre, or amenity=events_centre may be better suited.

I don't think that inconsistent use of crossing=traffic_signals can be remedied by inconsistent use of crossing=marked. In any case, if crossing=marked should be used for signalized pedestrian crossings, traffic_signals=yes should be added to match the proposal here: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dmarked (which does not seem to be the community consensus according to its usage.