Hi there. Please use the feature type Golf Cartpath in the future for ways like these, or the tags golf=cartpath and golf_cart=yes. Thanks!

I was hoping for the same thing. Based on recent construction, it looks like we may be in luck after all - unfortunately for me, it was the part of the Couture that I was most excited for and it looks like they've left it for last. I hope they provide a viable connection and get the light timing appreciably right.

Do you mean osm.org/way/683798300/ or in that area? Not at all, and my apologies! A huge oversight on my part (and the City's and County's for not making that a more useful thoroughfare!)

Sounds good! Thanks for doing all this work; I haven't seen it myself in person yet, post-construction.

re: the three cycle ways 1315628513, 1312868138, and 1315582292 - I'm concerned that they will negatively impact routing algorithms and I'm wondering if they are better mapped as cyclway:right=track, since this is how the rest of Walnut and Pleasant are tagged (rather than as their own objects/lines). Also, Walnut is a member of the city bike route network. To keep the geometry consistent and not confuse routers, could we retag these bike lanes as part of the roadways themselves?

I forgot to add this link - when you edit the OLT, please make sure that changes reflect the official system map:
https://mclio.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1106361257924a59a8fe371550b3133f For instance, this way isn't the main line of the OLT and due to its degraded surface (and current construction) it is not desirable or correct to tag it as designated for bikes: osm.org/way/55269511/history

Hi! Please keep the paths consistent throughout the network. The local consensus seems to be to use the preset feature "cycle and footpath" only for the "main channel" (so to speak) of each Oak Leaf Line (and not the branches, which will be either basic paths or footpaths. Please note that the preset feature Cycle & Footpath will automatically add "=designated" access tags to food and bicycle, which may not be desirable for routing algorithms.

Geez, I can't believe I missed that. My concern is that it seems to render a label at much higher zoom altitudes than the actual names of the OLT lines! Is there maybe some way to deprioritize it?

How do we feel about totally removing the East Side Bike Trail relation? It's utterly redundant - it's all already covered by the OLT Milwaukee River Line, and the name has fallen out of usage too. Everybody I know just calls it the Oak Leaf Trail. I think keeping the relation around has the potential to confuse new OSM users, and create busy work for everyone.

Thanks for this news! In light of this, I'll change the name and ref initials for the trails' relation. Thanks for drawing the new paths!

Hi. Are these paths owned and managed by County Parks? I noticed that Metro MTB are calling this/these the Kletzsch Park Trails but the County page only recognizes the River Glen Trail. Are these informal MTB or CX paths?

Hi. Does w878780839 still exist? I was there this weekend and saw no pathway here, just the bend in the stream. Is it a path only usable during winter?

None of these ways exist on the ground in real life - why were they drawn??

By "router," do you mean a person doing routing or a site like BRouter or RidewithGPS? In my experience with both of these, they can sometimes have trouble with separate bikeways parallel to roadways, especially when both are crossed by multiple service roads. I could be convinced one way or another, I just wanted to get my opinion on the record. I'm basing my argument almost entirely on the fact that the new VB bikeway is on the same unimproved road surface as the VB roadway itself. If it were freshly resurfaced, I think a separate cycle path would make the most sense, but as it is now, riding it feels (imo) barely different than the roadway.

I think the the new Van Buren cycleway should be tagged as a track on Van Buren itself, since it is not a separate feature in real life and is on the same surface as the roadway itself. That said, it appears that the southern section (from Kilbourn south) will be a separate surface and object.

Although I suppose an argument could be made that since they are side by side and level but neither the same surface nor the same pathway, there could be concrete sidewalks and asphalt one-way cycle paths as separate and parallel ways. Perhaps this would be best, to keep them discreet. Currently, they render in OpenCycleMap and CyclOSM as the same double-designated pathways.

Great find! Sorry I doubted you! After looking at that footage, and seeing as how the bike path and sidewalk are side by side but on the same level, perhaps we could re-tag these ways as feature type Cycle & Foot Path, with the oneway applying to only bikes:
bicycle=designated
highway=cycleway
cycleway:surface=asphalt
oneway:bicycle=yes
foot=designated
footway:surface=concrete
segregated=yes
surface=paved
What do you think?

I'm afraid these don't exist... There are only regular concrete sidewalks here.

Hey Alex, why did you retag Scott as unclassified/minor instead of residential?

Great catch, thanks!