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.

Hi! Please tag signalized pedestrian crossings as crossing=traffic_signals rather than crossing=marked. (Unfortunately iD presets like this one can occasionally be vague in their descriptions and cause people to tag things incorrectly) Have a look at osm.wiki/Key:crossing, and feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks for your work!

Hi, I deleted these cycleway ways as these cycle lanes were already tagged as cycleway:right=lane on both directions of the road. In general, highway=cycleway should only be used for separated bike paths (see osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway)

I don't think so. These are route markers IMO (at least all the ones I have seen) In any case, these signs also refer to city streets, and we aren't giving South Honey Creek Parkway the alt_name of "Oak Leaf Trail Kinnickinnic Line", for example

I had a look at some of the established practice, and I think the name fields should just be empty. The route names are just that: the names of the routes.

Hi! I just wanted to say that I'm somewhat skeptical of putting the route name on the individual ways) In general, as The "Oak Leaf Trail South Shore Line" is the route name, and isn't the name of each individual trail segment. (Also, it can get messy when a way is part of two cycle routes, such as the Brown Deer Trail/Zip Line.)

Let me know what you think!

Thanks for finding that... Definitely is a parking lot and to a bublr bike station :D

Personally I am quite cautious about tagging pathways as bicycle=yes/designated specifically within parks since cycling on park footpaths in the parks is technically illegal except on areas designated for cycling (of course we don't map legislation, but access restrictions should be legal :))

As for the OLT route relations, ideally there should be a correspondence with the waymarking signs on the trail, I believe the signs around there indicate that the two routes intersect at the intersection of Menomonee River Pkwy and Swan Blvd

I believe some of your modifications to the path types are incorrect (for example some of the paths around the hoyt park pool are definitly not cycleways)