I've deleted this, at your preference.

In practice, your video shows that the track does function separately to the road. The manoeuvres required are totally different to cycling on the road, in a contraflow direction. You also have to cross over in front of the traffic (which no router will in practice actually model now).

Could you please add metadata attributes such as width to the road.

PS Obviously the talk you mentioned was our talk... :)

We obviously strongly prefer mapping separate also, as it means there is much better representation of metadata for use in route choice but also as cartographically it probably matches what most people would expect.

Not sure about what you meant about side roads - by definition people coming from the side roads do have to cross over the cycleway.

Which would you prefer? Happy to delete whichever you want.

Hi there,

no it was not a mass edit as such.
There were 150 cases each of bicycle:oneway=yes or no that are obsolete because the tag oneway:bicycle should be used instead.

I went through each case and was careful only to upgrade bicycle:oneway=* to oneway:bicycle=*
as is suggested by the ID editor for each way.

There were also many cases where both tags were present, and so they have been simplified.

Simon

That wrong segment fixed in:

osm.org/changeset/98166752

- thanks for flagging up this error.

I don't think anyone is suggesting removing it - it is as you say a PROW.

It is mapped. The access currently is discouraged;designated. It is discouraged (there is a sign saying so, given the significant hazard), and it is designated, being a public right of way.

Could you comment here on what you propose to change before you do so? Or start a discussion on talk-gb.

Thanks; have made that change in:

osm.org/changeset/93608120#map=12/54.1344/-2.8693

Thanks. Hopefully lunar buggy users won't mind too much :)

I would still retain the discouraged tag also on access using the semicolon separator, given that it is both designated and officially actively discouraged (as the sign shows).

access=discouraged;designated

I suspect with the change to use disused:highway rather than highway, our routing engine and others wouldn't pick it up anyway. Indeed, disused:highway seems like a pretty good description of the reality here.

But listing designated for every type of transport mode still seems rather odd to me. I would more expect this to be on the access tag more generally, e.g. access=designated; discouraged. Do byways normally list every type of transport in this way, rather than just use the access to represent the same group?

Thanks. However, *=designated remains, which seems an anomaly if access=discouraged and disused:highway are there. Do you agree with the removal of those?

The wiki page for bicycle for instance says "explicitly designated for use by cyclists". The same certainly applies to cars and walking. This is really not the case here.

I don't have any strong views on this - feel free to remove if you wish!

Hmm. Can that be explicitly controlled using iD, do you know? I wasn't aware it could be.

Am happy for you to amend this - I didn't spot any restriction when I went past the other day, but didn't look too closely. There are physically some steps there though.

Thanks - I'll fix the tree location. I think it must have accidentally shifted slightly.

Please change it to what you think is more appropriate - Simon

The best way I could think to represent the informal but well-established routes through these fields. I don't think simply calling them by the name of the field makes sense, but happy to change it to something else if you have a suggestion.

Yes, there was definitely only one entrance to the Healing Fields from that side, and a continuous fence.

Hmm, I think this has been caused by a bug in GoMap (the client I used).

If you click on the Ways below it will show the changes - there was a change made to Carrer de Larrard (Barcelona) to fix the one-way direction, but I think I undid that. The history for that way shows that no change seems to have been made.

The second change, back here in Cambridge, is to make a section of cycle path wider.

I am satisfied that the final state of the data is correct.

Hi - a user gave us details that there was a pedestrian crossing not shown, so I added that and showed the layout more accurately, based on the aerial imagery. Do feel free to adjust if anything is wrong.

Apologies - now corrected..
osm.org/changeset/28850592