Hello Seb,
Merci pour ces corrections.
J'ai encore enlevé quelques tags tracktype... qui ne s'appliquent plus dès lors qu'on enlève highway=track ;-)

Correctif par rapport à mon commentaire précédent:
Les choix de catégorisation dans le canton de Vaud sont ici:
osm.wiki/Switzerland:Vaud/État_des_routes_cantonales

Re-bonjour,
Je vois que vous avez à nouveau catégorisé une route communale en tertiary, malgré (ou suite à?) ma remarque d'hier concernant le chemin du Mottaz.
Pour information, les règles de catégorisation des routes sont décrites ici: osm.wiki/FR:Switzerland/Map_Features
Et les choix de catégorisation des routes principales dans le canton de Vaud ici: osm.wiki/Talk:Switzerland:Vaud/État_des_routes_cantonales
Pensez-vous que ces règles sont inadéquates pour la catégorisation de la route des Montagnes?
Bien cordialement,
Michael

Thanks for responding. I did revert your changeset, removing the roughly estimated widths.
By the way, I do not agree with you that providing inexact width values is "better than nothing". If no width value is given, data users can assume that the specific cycleway is within usual standards. If instead a width tag exists, data users will logically rely on the provided value and it is thus counterproductive to supply estimated widths.

Bonjour et merci pour vos contributions.
Pour information, dans le canton de Vaud, les catégories de route primary, secondary et tertiary sont réservées à des routes cantonales et il ne convient pas de les utiliser pour des routes communales.
Pour ces chemins, il me semble que la catégorie unclassified serait la plus adéquate.
Bien cordialement,
Michael

Hello and thank you for your contributions. However, this changeset is problematic because you did provide roughly estimated (or rounded?) width values for all of these cycleways. If you like to contribute at this very detailed level, please do provide precise width data, that is with at least 1 decimal value ;-)
Your values might be mistakingly interpreted by bicycle routers as describing poor quality cycling infrastructure (e.g. 1 m width is much narrower than the usual Swiss norm for a oneway cycleway)
Would you like to correct your data or do you prefer me to revert that changeset?
Cheers, Michael

Ce retour me semble étrange à plusieurs titres:
1) Si on est pas sûr de la situation sur le terrain, il me semble préférable de s'abstenir de faire des modifications ayant pour seul but d'enlever un tag déprécié.
2) Le tag cycleway=opposite_lane incluait par défaut l'information que la bande se situe à gauche (ou à droite dans les pays avec conduite sur le côté gauche). En indiquant seulement "cycleway=lane", cela devient beaucoup plus compliqué d'interpréter l'information et cela restera dans tous les cas ambigu...
3) Mon commentaire n'était pas un reproche et votre explication tentant de démontrer que vous aviez fait tout juste me déconcerte. Mon commentaire visait simplement à éviter une répétition de modifications du même genre à d'autres endroits. J'espère donc que ce message a bien été reçu comme tel ;-)
Bonne soirée,
Michael

Hello, OK pour considérer que l'attribut cycleway=opposite_lane est déprécié, mais pour le coup il convient de préciser le côté de la bande (cycleway:left=lane) car cycleway=lane est vraiment ambigu (sur une voie en sens unique, la bande est supposée par défaut être à droite ;-)

On the Rte de Suisse, which is mapped as a primary road, I imagine that a lane will generally be considered as more secure than a shared_lane. I tried it with geovelo.ch (the system which is supported by regional authorities), however that system has not yet updated its routing base data and it currently proposes itineraries on the right side track (i.e. in a wrong direction, because that was not tagged as oneway before my last edits).

Regarding the benefit of the lanes that I mentioned regarding the lateral passing distance: that is not solely my own perception, this benefit has been confirmed by an evaluation study ;-)

Those "covid"-lanes have been painted mainly on main roads outside of towns, where the speed limit is 60 or even 80 km/h. They are not narrower than required by the Swiss technical norms (i.e. they are at least 1.50 m wide). It is really the remaining width for the car lanes that is impacted!
Their main benefit is indeed that car drivers get more aware of the necessary lateral passing distance. For example, look at this road section where this innovative way of lane painting is even more impressive: osm.org/way/682712590

PS. On that portion of the Rte de Suisse, the lane tagging is debatable and I will check the results of bicycle routers. Maybe I will revert the tagging to cycleway:left=lane...

Hello and thanks for your own edits.
In the Canton of Vaud, some bike lanes are a bit tricky because they were painted out of the Swiss norm during covid-pandemic (https://www.vd.ch/mobilite/loffre-de-mobilite-a-votre-disposition/velo-et-marche/velos/amenagements-cyclables#:~:text=Au%20sortir%20du%20premier%20confinement,avec%20des%20bandes%20cyclables%20provisoires.). As a consequence, the car lanes are very narrow on those roads and cars often have to drive on the bike lanes when passing vehicles coming the other way. While still useful, those bike lanes do not have the usual cycling value of a standard bike lane...

Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I did correct the duped cycleways (cf
osm.org/changeset/153732084 and osm.org/changeset/153532971).
By the way, this issue is a generic one and I believe mappers in other areas will also be thankful if you check the existence of separated cycleways before tagging roads with StreetComplete ;-) Mapping cycleways and sidewalks with SC is quite tricky, because they may be mapped separately...
Happy mapping!

Hello and thank you for your contributions to OSM!
As I see that you like to tag cycleways with StreetComplete, I would like to inform you that I recently updated cycleways all over the canton of Geneva in a systematic way. Quite often, cycle tracks have been mapped separately from roads and thus adding tags on the road segments ends up to duplicate the cycling infrastructure. Unfortunately, this can also deteriorate routing...
For example, in the present changeset, you added such duplicate tags on multiple segments of Route de Saint-Julien and on Route de Drize. Can you please be more careful and check if tracks are already mapped separately before adding tags to the road segments?
I have not yet modified your tagging of the present changeset, so you can check yourself the duplication issue ;-)

Bonjour et merci pour vos contributions! J'ai enlevé ce noeud, car il reliait deux chemins situés à des niveaux différents. Il ne faut pas relier des chemins par un noeud s'il n'y a pas de possibilité de bifurquer à l'endroit concerné, car cela fausse les calculs d'itinéraires.
J'en ai profité pour améliorer la carte dans les alentours de la gare...

In this changeset, you updated some speed limits to 20 km/h. Those streets have de facto become so called living streets (zone de rencontre) and there is a specific highway tag for those: highway=living_street

Another learning advice: in this changeset, you modified the name of the cemetary by putting it into english. In our area, the usual language is french and you should thus leave name=* tags in french. If you want to improve the local map for english readers, you can do so by using the tag "name:en=*".

The same comment applies also to these other objects:
osm.org/way/32805217
osm.org/way/1177649076

Hello again, Here is another small cycleway segment you tagged as oneway. This leads cycle routing engines not to allow left turns when coming down Rue du Valais from the tunnel under the railways, even though this left turn is possible for cyclists.

Hello, you tagged the Chemin de la Scie as oneway but in the wrong direction. Are you aware that you sometimes need to reverse the segment direction when adding a oneway=yes tag to a way?
(I noticed the same mistake on this other segment that you tagged as oneway: osm.org/way/88891317)

Après vérification sur place, j'ai codé le double-sens cyclable.

Hello ;-)
Sur l'image aérienne et dans les données SITG, je vois que le passage Cabriol est indiqué en double-sens cyclable (a priori, c'est un changement intervenu fin 2023). Vu que tu es passé là tout récemment, peux-tu stp m'indiquer si tu es sûr de ton codage?