We disagree with this removal for the reason that these are well-established informal paths, providing utility outside the festival period. Burning Man paths are similarly kept alive between festivals.

This should be reverted.

See comment:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/glastonbury-festival-temporary-event-mapping/132207/3

Ah, sorry, will do next time, thank you.

The above comment is moved to osm.org/changeset/152755535 where the way was created.

Way 1292824574 should be removed because the cycleway along Huntingdon Road is more correctly modelled by the cycleway=track or cycleway=lane properites of the highway=primary. Cyclists riding on the cycleway on Huntingdon Road do not have to give way when passing side roads, which is one of the main reasons why the cycleway is part of the road, not a separate way.

Way 1292824574 should be removed because the cycleway along Huntingdon Road is more correctly modelled by the cycleway=track or cycleway=lane properites of the highway=primary. Cyclists riding on the cycleway on Huntingdon Road do not have to give way when passing side roads, which is one of the main reasons why the cycleway is part of the road, not a separate way.

Do you know why way 24157948 has lost it's cycleway status?

Great, thanks both for all your attention on this. No worries, AllotmentCyclist - it's great that you spotted the earlier problem anyway!

> I think there is only one way which you have marked as a "Busway" . This one
osm.org/way/235913817/history

If you look at the history there, you can see we haven't changed the tagging at all. The only change to that way will be that we joined on the cycleway coming from the north, i.e. added a node. It was already set as busway and bicycle=designated beforehand.

I suggest you add foot=yes if you are concerned that walk routing engines wouldn't imply that highway=busway assumes sidewalk=yes.

Sounds like this is an oversight. Can you give an example of a specific way? We included foot=yes or left existing foot tags in place, so am not sure which way/ways you meant. Happy to correct any mistakes.

> please, be carefull with bus routes.

Disculpes, saps quin error he comès? Vaig tenir cura d'assegurar una relació completa, però devia haver perdut alguna cosa.

És molt emocionant veure els canvis a Glories. Fins i tot durant l'últim mes ha estat sorprenent veure el progrés a les línies de tramvia.

PS He corregit durant l'últim mes les ubicacions de les vies bici per la zona, especialment a l'oest, que estaven obsoletes.

The ramp has around seven flat areas along it, which enable wheelchair users to rest.

There is currently no documented OSM tag. So we have made up the tag in expectation of future support. If you can find a better tag, e.g. wheelchair_resting=yes or whatever, please do change.

Great - thanks a lot.

OK, pedestrian connectivity added in: osm.org/changeset/121070404

La fonte della geometria è stata una visita di persona, nella tua meravigliosa città.

Un buon punto circa il tagging di accesso. Ora riparato:

osm.org/changeset/120720262

La fuente de la geometría fue una visita en persona, a tu maravillosa ciudad.

Buen punto sobre el etiquetado de acceso. Ahora arreglado en:
osm.org/changeset/120720262

---
[en:]

The source of geometry was a visit in person, to your wonderful city.

Good point about the access tagging. Now fixed in:
osm.org/changeset/120720262

@jennycook is quite correct. There is nothing wrong with adding sidewalks alongside a road, as that provides the opportunity to add metadata about it, e.g. width.

However, even more relevant here is that this is necessary to do for shared-use paths. A sidewalk that is shared-use for cycling is not an ordinary pavement. It is quite normal for shared-use paths to be marked separately, as they are not the norm.

Hi Mac,

We haven't changed its status - there was no construction tag. Feel free to add that.

All we've done is changed it to two-way, which is now the fact on the ground, and added other metadata.

We didn't add the original track - which someone else had added. The problem was that it was impossible to get to it. Obviously do resolve the double-track problem, but while the second one is there it should at least be routable.

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.