Hi, could you fix this way? Looks like it got pulled and snapped. osm.org/way/975131473#map=18/39.952799/-75.184317

Hi there. This roadway and way w651014475 must be highway=primary because they are part of WI-32 and are a state trunk roadway. They are residential, true, but not predominately.

Lake Huron has been broken for several years; many of us assume it's a broken relation. Would you be willing and able to take a look? https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCAEPLP33/p1746564448677079

I don't believe Main Street in Eagle River is private. Is this correct or was this a mistake?

Thanks for adding so many track roads to the Keweenaw! Your work has not gone unnoticed!

Ah, I see. Frankly, I have no idea. Technically, since they are separate objects and surfaces/materials from the roadway itself, a case could be made for highway=cycleway (preset feature Cycle Path). But I would argue since drivers must necessarily drive into and across them to park, I think cycleway:right/left=lane is still the best for the entire stretch of elevated bike lanes on Bay St.

Hi there - have you thought any more about this? I've been riding it more frequently lately and making some observations and notes, and I really do believe that retagging these cycletracks onto the roadways is the right way to go. If they were fully grade-separated or constructed separately of a different material, I think then it would be more accurate to have them as separate objects. But VB & Holton weren't even resurfaced (mostly), they just slapped down some paint lines on VB and jersey barriers on Holton. Retagging them onto the roadways would simplify a lot of future editing, and they'd still render pretty much the same too.

Good catch with this! =track is really incorrect - drivers must driver into the bike lanes just to park! Track never should've been tagged. Thanks, MEH!

I think it'd be more accurate to change the access tags for closed slip lanes to all=no, since they weren't designed or built to be pedestrian streets. Doing so wouldn't prevent algorithmic routing to/from the crosswalk. Also, it's possible that without all=no, the roadway itself will still render on some map services and indicate to drivers that they could still use it. as a roadway. It exists, but it's closed pending removal, so I think all=no is the best option. Curious what you think too.

This is very helpful; thank you very much!

I appreciate this changeset comment very much. Could you tell me about your process and any advice you have? The multipolygon landuse areas are out of control in some places, and I'm nervous I will break relations somewhere. It's also aggravating that so many landuse polygons are snapped to roads and paths.

In doing this, I also updated/corrected the boundary for Bass River State Forest North, but have not yet done the same work for BRSF South.

Gotcha! Thanks for all this. I think I disagree on your latter point though; I think that a trail user following audio or textual directions would find it more helpful to see/hear "Oak Leaf Trail" than "Menomonee Parkway," because most people have the association that path=trail, and hearing "Parkway" might confuse people into thinking the path/trail is closed and/or the roadway is preferential. Right?

But yes, I definitely agree about the signage and consistency. I've been seeing a lot more signs and trying to mark them as info boards/maps where appropriate. I think by now County Parks has done a good enough job signing the route lines that we should just name the pathways - or at least the "main lines" of the route lines, as drawn in the County's Interactive OLT Map. Maybe this is a good compromise?

Can you remind me why we agreed to remove the OLT Lines' names from the pathways themselves? I can't remember if spoke via DM or changeset comment. Anyway, I use RidewithGPS exclusively, and I've found the audio directions to be really consistent - and really really handy when a pathway IS actually named with the route line, so I know (for instance) that I'm turning slight right onto an OLT path and not hard right onto a roadway. I'm very willing to re/name each member way in each of the 11 lines' relations if we can come to a consensus about this. It seems many other users have recently been re/naming segments with the same names of the Lines/relations.

Ok yeah, I still think mapping the cycle-tracks as =track on the roadway itself is still more accurate than by drawing them as separate geometries, since they are part of the roadways themselves and not separated paths.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but VB and Holton both have - and will keep - protected two-way cycle-tracks and will not receive (as far as I know) one-way separated cycle-tracks (Kilbourn and Walnut).

I think I might be confused; do you mean the concrete barriers at being added to separate the two-way cycle-track from Van Buren's car traffic, or right down the middle of the cycle-track itself?

Thanks for doing this! This is really good to know. I was not familiar with this and will be sure to take note for next time. Does the Byrne Cranberry Trail loop look correct?

I have some concerns about the cycletrack geometry, and I have a suggestion that avoids having to solve any current or future layer problems. Since this two-way cycle track is not grade separated, and since it is on the same roadway surface as Holton, I would suggest it be retagged onto the Holton roadways themselves. That way, it avoids any layer issues, avoids any rendering issues in other maps (we don't want drivers seeing a parallel way and thinking it's a road, and this would preclude any future access tag inconsistencies on a separate geometric object.
I'd recommend that Holton and Van Buren be tagged as:
bicycles=designated
cycleway:right=track
cycleway:left=lane (for the southbound Holton lane only)
oneway:bicycles=no (to ensure that routing algorithms still work for southbound riders in the cycle track on the right/northbound side of the road)
This way, it also simplifies the geometry of lines (and the Holton bridge area polygon) over the river, which is already pretty busy and confusing because of the marsupial bridge path underneath.

Thanks for your edit - and this comment! I think it's really important to ask engineers these targeted questions.