Could we perhaps retire the relation Easton to Pen Argyl Regional Trail (2851685)? Is it explicitly called this on trail signs? Since the local relation PTRT connects to other local trail relations, an Easton-Pen Argyl relation may confuse some users and routing engines. What do you think?

Cheers, thanks for the help. These were some of my first, while I was still learning. Maybe I shouldn't map after midnight!

Thanks for the heads-up! Corrected.

Also created the new Theater District. I oopsed, and thought I'd submitted two different changesets. Oops.

I think we should refrain from snapping landuse boundaries to roadways. It seems the community documentation consensus is that they should be drawn to the edge of each block rather than roadways' centerlines. It's getting pretty tough to edit and update roadways when landuse is snapped to them.

Hey there. I'm wondering why you tagged all these sidewalks as bicycles=yes. I don't see any signs indicating this in Street View, and it's kind of plays hell with routing engines in that area...

Great point! Probably, but I'm not sure - they're not gated or explicitly restricted in the same way the roadway itself is. https://goo.gl/maps/zoib8RGomWSaErsu7 What do you think?

You wrote on changeset #126302997: "It is a hiking trail that allows bicycles, and not a bicycle trail that allows hiking." What is your source for this? This seems to contradict your last comment, that the signage and websites express no preference or priority, but yet (as of version 11 in changeset #122711936), this trail had a regional bicycle route and the correct highway=path, rather than only highway=footway from version 12. Why is this?

I'm not suggesting that a changeset commentary should determine usage, nor that this commentary should determine designations. But since this trail is currently designated for both foot and cycle traffic, and is an established bike trail, it deserves a regional Bike Route relation.

I'm simply asking for other users' sources for why the Bugline is no longer a Bike Route relation, and for why its type is Foot Path instead of Path, which maintains both Foot=designated and Cycle=designated.

I am not familiar with any rule or precedent that insists that footways cannot also be Cycle Route Relations, but I would argue that since the Bugline IS designated for both foot AND cycle traffic, a general Path type is warranted instead of Foot Path.

What is your source that this trail is primarily for hiking/foot traffic? The cited website to waukesha.gov is broken. But Menomonee Falls' own pages clearly indicate the Bugline is equally for biking and hiking ( https://www.menomonee-falls.org/1168/Bugline-Trail ) and even refer to https://www.waukeshacounty.gov/biking/ Not tagging the Bugline Trail as a regional bike route is a collective loss for the users of CyclOSM.org and opencyclemap.org, and I hope I've made a strong case that the bike route be reinstated.

I would argue Polonia and Lincoln village should be bordered by the River between S 6th and S 16th Sts - rather than by either Harrison Ave or Cleveland Ave. The UWM Neighborhoods LibGuide is often cited as the authority for Milwaukee's OSM neighborhoods, but the map at the guide has recently and inconsistently changed Polonia and Lincoln Village's boundary from Harrison (old map: https://earth.google.com/web/@42.99606111,-87.91526669,189.90673105a,1216.99742754d,30.00001232y,359.25790656h,0t,0r/data=OgMKATA) to Cleveland (new map: https://guides.library.uwm.edu/c.php?g=56373&p=7831880). The Kinnickinnic River makes the most sense because of how few crossings there are. Furthermore, it's absurd that Baran Park would not include the area of S 3rd & Harrison; in no way is it connected to Bay View. UWM's boundaries were not drawn with care, and the River makes the most logical sense.

That sounds like the perfect compromise and use in this case!

I don't think it makes sense to remove the route where signs aren't present. They don't appear in Google Street View, but a few are there in person and this roadway is still accounted for as a bike route in the city's maps. Removing the route from this way and Brown creates a gap in CyclOSM.

Feel free to revert! If memory serves from an in-person visit, there is separation between the cycle tracks and roadway with curbs, and there is also separation between the footway and cycletrack by a continuous, parallel grass strip. The cycletracks do not appear to be compulsory, and the the cycletracks are signalized at Connell.

Thanks. Now that I know about the Data Working Group, I will be sure to reach out in the future. I was under the impression that using data from Trailforks in OSM violated Trailforks' user license policies - is this not the case? Moreover, the pathways I removed were not simply inaccurate to ground truth, but they also crossed many other ways without intersecting nodes, and many ways simply do not exist at all.

Which footway in particular are you referring to?

Thanks

But wouldn't this conflict with the actual on-the-ground wayfinding signs that exist usually at intersections of path and path?

Good point. Perhaps we could use the "alt_name" tag and include both relevant Relations? Thankfully there are very few trails that double - I'm thinking of the City-owned Beerline vs. the County-owned Beerline segments. Or do you mean that we should strike the Line name in favor of making all ways simply "Oak Leaf Trail"? I'm not in favor of this latter option because it's not as specific as it could be. Or do you mean simply striking all paths' Names (field & tag) and only IDing them by their Relations? That could work, and would declutter the ways' name labels when zoomed far in.

Feel free to change or revert any that you believe are inaccurate. I base my edits to path types around path width (shared multiuse paths are usually 8-10' wide), path material (almost always paved asphalt), and personal experience (seeing many people commonly riding bikes there). Regarding Hoyt Park specifically, it is the trailhead for the OLT Menomonee Line (at the bridge) and the Hoyt Park MTB Trail, which surrounds the pool at the park's perimeter. https://www.mtbproject.com/trail/62201/hoyt-park I would argue the changes I made to paths in Hoyt Park are correct as Cycle & Foot Paths because they and the park connect the former two trails with the OLT Root River Line - but it may be true that I inaccurately and mistakenly tagged them (the Hoyt Park paths specifically) as part of the OLT Meno Line when they in fact are not.

Got it. Thanks.