> There was a modeling artifact on the trail where rather than making a clear movement across the street, which is what people do in that spot, the modeling artifact suggested that you would turn left on Duck Pond Drive, then turn right on the trail.

It's been a little bit since I last biked in that exact spot, but yup this is indeed exactly what I did there as a cyclist in the real-world, and (following review of the available sources of aerial and ground-level imagery as well as Virginia and local law) is why I mapped it that way.

The alternative would appear to be riding at a greater than 45-degree angle into oncoming traffic coming around a nearly-blind corner (with under 2 seconds of reaction time at the speed limit), over a narrow bridge (signed as such), across a double yellow line, along a course with no markings, signage or legal right-of-way under Virginia law as cyclists or even as pedestrians. While I don't doubt some cyclists may choose to ride in this fashion, I'm not aware of either a legal right of way nor any physical crossing infrastructure that would support it being mapped as a lawful and on-the-ground verifiable cycleway in OSM (much less an explicitly `bicycle=designated` one, and missing crossing tags on the way).

However, if you have access to some survey data or (OSM-allowable) imagery that supports its existence, I'd be happy to take a look. Alternatively, perhaps there is there something else I'm missing here as to why this should be the preferred mapping per documented OpenStreetMap conventions?

> hence the need for ways that are properly split at various junctions.

I _personally_ typically split ways at logical junctions (provided they don't result in split ways that are excessively short, frequent or otherwise make mapping and editing them more tedious and error-prone), and I actually find many of the changes generally helpful when they are splitting e.g. long footways, or sidewalks at blocks/intersections. However, I'm not aware of OSM documented community guideline or convention I'm aware of that states or implies that it is "proper" or even beneficial that ways be split at every intersection with another routable way—in fact, general de-facto mapping convention mostly only splits contiguous linear ways where there is a direct OSM-relevant reason to do so, such as a change in tags, relation membership or excessive length, and shorter continuous ways that don't have any apparent reason to be split are liable to be recombined by other mappers, especially things like splitting crossing ways and short footway segments that make editing tags more time-consuming and error-prone.

Unconditionally splitting every bicycle-navigable ways at every junction with another such way so your specific router can handle them may get a bit close to the core principle of OSM of [don't map for the router](osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_router) in some mappers' view, given this is not widespread mapping practice, has the aforementioned potential drawbacks if done in all cases without a visible OSM benefit, and is not required for any other car, bike or pedestrian router I'm aware of. Also, at least to some mappers it may look a bit like [mechanical edits](osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy) which OSM has some pretty strict rules on.

Therefore, to continue this discussion, mitigate any potential pushback and gather community feedback, I think it would be highly beneficial for you to make a post on [the OSM community forum](https://community.openstreetmap.org/) explaining the mass changes your team is making, the rationale behind them and welcoming feedback and suggestions on your approach. You've been quite responsive and friendly thus far and appear to have a non-trivial history as a mapper, so I suspect it would be well received and beneficial to all involved if you initiated it. If not, I'd be happy to make a post myself sharing my perspective as a neutral mapper, highlighting the benefits I see while also surfacing some potential concerns others might have (to which you'd be most welcome to reply to share your perspective).

Hey, thanks for the quick and detailed response!

> Yes, we are building a bike map

Thanks for the clarification here! As this appears to be [Organised Editing](osm.wiki/Organised_Editing) with employees mapping under the direction of your company, you'll want to read and follow the [Organised Editing Guidelines](https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines), e.g. listing your project [in the wiki's list of such](osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities) and providing at least [basic documentation](https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines#Documentation_on_the_wiki) of who you are, the types of changes you will be making and why, etc.; posting an announcement on the OSM community forum and other channels as appropriate to the areas you'll be mapping in (e.g. OSM-US Slack), and tagging your company's changesets with a unique hashtag (e.g. `#BikeStreets`). This will also aid community acceptance and understanding of your changes and help foster a constructive collaboration ahead of time to ensure they are mutually beneficial for both the OSM community and yourselves.

Hi atticquilt, I'm a little perplexed by this changeset. Could you help me understand what you were trying to fix that was wrong with the previous geometry, your reasoning for changing it, and why you chose the geometry you did given what's on the ground here? Thanks!

On another note, I see you and several other recently active mappers in the Blacksburg area appear to be affiliated with http://BikeStreets.com, and have rather particular patterns of mapping viz splitting ways, I assume for routing purposes—could you help me understand a little more about what you're doing and why? (PS: Detailed, meaningful changeset comments are really helpful in that regard :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170357437

By the way, that's a really cute kitty cat in your profile photo! >^..^< Also, just a tip—its a great idea to write a detailed changeset comment explaining what you did and why you did it, so that other mappers can understand your intent :)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

On another note, I see you and several other recently active mappers in the Blacksburg area appear to be affiliated with BikeStreets.com, and have rather particular patterns of mapping viz splitting ways, I assume for routing purposes—could you help me understand a little more about that? Thanks, and happy mapping!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

Hi TheKegzster—welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for contributing! Your other two changesets appeared fine, but just wanted to let you know that I noticed this one had accidentally deleted the portions of Edge Way in both directions connecting it to Toms Creek Road, meaning that car and bike routing into and out of The Edge apartment complex will be broken—surely not what you intended here, and will presumably cause bigger problems for the cycle mapp application you're trying to use then you were trying to fix :)

Given the critical nature of the change, I immediately pushed a new changeset, #170372077 , fixing the problem. I also split Edge Way between the crossing and Tom's Creek into separate ways, in case that was what you intended to do instead. So its all fixed now, not to worry, and I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future ;)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846