Got it, so it's just incomplete, not exactly broken. I wouldn't mind if you fixed this/these yourself in the future, but I appreciate you letting me know!

Can you explain? It looks fine to me - six member ways (all outer), and one member node (label).

Please be very careful drawing ways - sidewalk w767521370 overlaps and duplicates several other ways, including sidewalks, crossings, and roads.

Many of these sidewalks do not yet exist. Please be sure to check all imagery layers and use the Show Background Panel (Ctrl-Shift-b) to see the dates of the aerial imagery layers.

Hi there. Just curious why you're tagging sidewalks as bicycles=yes. It's kind of playing havoc with my personal bike routing in the West Allis/Greenfield area, and I can't be alone in that. Would perhaps the default Not Specified be enough?

Hi there. I don't see any cycle tracks on S 17th Ave/Bike Route 17 in Street View. Do they exist in person? Are they very new? I didn't know the city was planning to build them.

Thanks for the heads up! I'll start using bicycle_street=yes.

As far as I know, there is not yet an American consensus on cyclestreets. I've seen the tag applied to other cities in Wisconsin for greenways (roads with motor traffic, and greenway paths) and bike boulevards, so I used it here to see if/how it would affect rendering in CyclOSM & OpenCycleMap, and routing in RWGPS and BRouter.de. For what it's worth, I have never seen bicycle_road used in the cities I visit/map. Thanks for your input!

I got confused and misspoke. It seems that Barriers (Feature Type: Barrier) CAN have a Type subfield planter (tag barrier=planter). But what I meant to say that is that a Planter as a node can remain unchanged with a tag barrier=yes but when a Planter's tag is changed from barrier=bollard, the Feature Type changes to Bollard. But all of this is irrelevant anyway; I was looking for the perfect combination of tags to account for the types of planters/barriers I saw in person and got my tags mixed up.

I think it was the user prior to you, but is it redundant for W Locust to have ref=I 43 Alternate when its ways are also members of the I 43 Alternate relation? I think the ref tags are causing W Locust to render with the I-43 badges...

Much of footpath way #206042064 was opened during covid and subsequent winters for pedestrians and bicyclists. It's stayed this way every winter, during the Summerfest Grounds' off-season. What do you think about tagging this and other footpaths as bicycles=yes while keeping, modifying, and adding a few more Gate nodes?

A few segments of Howard EB and WB are Secondary Links instead of Secondary Roads. Should they be Sec Roads too?

Me too! Shame it's not official...

Hello! What is the Big Easy shelter? Is it private? It doesn't appear on any other maps I've seen.

I noticed the same thing! But figured I'd leave it for you or someone else who's more familiar with the area. My guess is that the path itself is not named, so since it is a part of two different trails, it should also belong to a Route relation called Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway (Trail). Or, if LSHG(T) IS the name, then I suppose Mason-Dixon Trail should be removed as a name but kept as a relation. What do you think is best?

My mistake. This Hiking Route relation already exists.

Track roads do not usually disallow bicycles and horses. If that segment of the Batona Trail is a path, please feel free to tag it as a path. It is currently a track road named (perhaps incorrectly) as the Batona Trail. The BT should probably become a Hiking Route Relation of members (foot paths and track roads where accurate) rather than a series of unrelated ways with name=Batona Trail.

I've gotten different results with BRouter and RWGPS too. Rather than tagging bicycles=yes in municipalities in which it's allowed but not designated, it may be enough to add surface values to sidewalks. In my experience (with RWGPS especially) that can often be enough to trigger a prioritization over other nearby ways.

I have some concerns about bicycles=yes on the Northway sidewalks. Not only does it cause routing engines to go haywire when routing through this area, Greendale village forbids riding bikes on sidewalks in business districts. Wouldn't Northway count, in this case? I think the default Not Specified would be best. What do you think?
https://www.murphyprachthauser.com/blog/milwaukee-personal-injury-lawyer-blog/can-lawfully-ride-bike-wisconsin
And a quick clarification, Greenfield disobeys it (for public over 12yo).
https://library.municode.com/wi/greenfield/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH8TRCO_8.18REOPBI

It is imperative for routing engines, opencyclemap.org, and cyclosm.org that the Perkiomen Trail relation remain a Bicycle Route relation. It IS also a foot trail, so all member ways should also have a second relation of either Walking Route, Hiking Route, or simply Route. But a Bicycle Route relation is crucial. Would you like to make this change?