Ich kann es nochmal from scratch machen. Danke für deine Hilfe :)

Tatsächlich hatte ich gedacht, das der Weg mit highway=steps (osm.org/way/1395553456) reicht, aber ich verstehe was du hier meinst.

Ich habe auch gemerkt, das surface=paving_stones teilweise nicht korrekt war, zum Beispiel Friedrichplatz soll surface=sett sein, und deswegen die Löschung. Aber im Rückblick vielleicht surface=paved wäre besser, aber ich könnte es mit surface=paving_stones lassen und einen Hinweis machen

Meinst du, dass es eine Fläche mit area:highway=pedestrian gab, aber ohne einen Weg mit highway=pedestrian drin? Ich habe meinen Changeset jetzt geprüft, aber ich könnte das nicht finden.

Und ich war dort vor Ort, aber nur einen Tag :)

In my opinion, the roads on the island should be tagged as normal roads (i.e. highway=residential/unclassified/tertiary) but just be tagged with motor_vehicle=no (and snowmobile=yes since snowmobiles are allowed if i recall correctly)

Wieso war area:highway nicht angemessen? Hindenburgstraße ist wohl eine lineare Straße

I believe that earlier that the different lines where not particularly well signed, and thus that using the route as the name could be potentially confusing to end users. In any case, it seems like there is more signage being installed, so it might be better to use the line name as the name of the ways now.

One other thing that came to mind, however, is trails which (very closely) follow a road. (for example, North Menomonee River Parkway between Burleigh and North Avenue) A user receiving a navigation prompt to follow "North Menomonee River Parkway" might be more useful than following "Oak Leaf Trail Menomonee River Line"

Also, btw, we are not the first people to have this discussion, for example there was this thread in the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/trails-use-name-and-or-hiking-route/110106
I'd rather not get to in the weeds about "what is a name" as usually OSM is best when there are practical, understandable solutions

Most of the changes are based on the classification guidelines that I drafted: osm.wiki/Wisconsin/Highway_Classification
which in turn was based on osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Do you mean this park outline: osm.org/relation/6431116 ? As far as I can tell it represents the name of the "park" that this part of the OLT is contained in, and actually is not the bike trail itself. In fact, "East Side Bike Trail" is listed as a park on the milwaukee county parks website: https://county.milwaukee.gov/EN/Parks/Explore/Find-a-Park

And yes, I do find this confusing, but mapping can be confusing sometimes :)

Hi! I wrote a python script to convert a GTFS stops file into a OSM xml file with the appropriate OSM tags. Then I have been reviewing it one street at a time and merging each point with the existing OSM bus stop, as well as adding a name manually. I can share the python script if you are interested.

Best,
Alex

You may want to suggest changes to osm.wiki/Land_use on the forum, because this mapping style even seems to be suggested by the wiki, at least as a first pass which can be improved upon in the future if someone has the the time/motivation.

I could go either way with it. It seems to be separated in more places than others (for example with the bus islands which I wanted to map at some point). On the other hand using cycleway=track allows for a router to easily switch between the cycleway and the road. If you want to change it to cycleway:right=track, don't forget to add cycleway:right:oneway=no

Ah, I see what happened here. There was a node with public_transport=platform as well as an area with public_transport=platform which represented the same feature in real life (a tram platform) but had the contradicting values for bin and wheelchair. When I combined them it resulted in the yes;no situation there is now.

Therefore I don't know which value is correct, as it was mapped inconsistently in the first place. I will survey the situation the next time I am in the area.

Thanks,
Alex

At least according to osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway, you can use either highway=path or highway=cycleway (along with the other tags you mentioned) for this sort of situation without any sort of difference, so IMO it doesn't make much of a difference either way. I do however think that it should be one way considering you can go from the sidewalk to the bike lane portion without any large effort.

They are relatively new, given they were just opened in 2023. They're asphalt next to the sidewalk, and I rode it myself. The construction contractor also published some drone footage during construction if you'd like to see what it looks like: https://graef-usa.com/west-north-avenue/

I think it was a mistake or something; anyways I changed it back to residential

Hi!
It looks like you are mapping traffic islands with highway=pedestrian, which is meant for pedestrian streets and areas. I believe a more fitting tag would be area:highway=traffic_island, given pedestrians aren't meant to walk along them.

Hi, I meant that the offer a bus shuttle to local sports games. It's a service offered by many bars, at least in Milwaukee. I don't believe there is an existing tagging scheme for this service.

Note that highway=footway can have any surface, and that surface can be specified with the surface=* key. Thanks for contributing to OSM!

(Replying from my main account instead of my import account)
I didn't set this value, it looks like the value was initially set by shuui.

While I can agree that being lined by businesses and controlled by traffic lights can often be an indicator of highway=secondary in Chicago, the loop is special in that it is so busy that nearly every street will be controlled by traffic lights. In addition, having every street be secondary is not very helpful to someone trying to identify the main through routes.