One final note, the GPS trace I took on 200801 including where the approximate fence points were align very well with via Pantini. The park outline seems to be quite a bit off, like 5 meters or more the sat imaging suggests. Cosmetics to most.I suppose

OK went ahead and drafted in the 3 areas without touching the bigger area outline, just lower streetside fence and raised the backside ones. The 4 area I've not qualified.

PS not seen an access to that 4th area, it's just wild.

Where you repaired the relation there's 2 more dog areas adjacent extending all the way to the buildings at the bend of Romualdo. Had it on my list to add, but maybe you'd like to do that keeping the relations in tact. The fence road side and separators are about 1 meter and the original 2 meter park fence was moved in, same as the first dog area. Thusly, it's not clear to me if the dog areas are part of the park. Anyway that situation is as long as I've been cycling by in the past 8 years, and nobody has bothered.

cheers

Just my 2nd comment that landed in the wrong thread without a delete option, but there's a relation, those 'tags' I mentioned in my first comment and 3rd comment. Hands-off, unless "fino a prova contraria", and then, communicate first and not as has happened on the SS5, JDI when all the road signs along the way are still saying SS5.

Someone messing with tags as a result breaking a relation.

The relational routing is broken. Click on osm.org/relation/31311 and you'll see the subject section is MIA.

Just an observation, no critique or contention: That seems to be a frequent issue at OSM, ... relations. Think that those who want to create the relation have to create a new one and tag them appropriately, rather than changing/deleting existing tags of which the person doing the relational work has no oversight of the implication for e.g. route mappers. Walked into 'Should' and 'Why' and someone wanting to remove a bunch of tags because it suited him, then relationally tagged a piece of cycle track and left it entirely without 'what kind, how wide, inclination, lit, etc'. There's no 'should' in my vocabulary, this is a real big volunteers project.
cheers

Just curious, what are 'embedded_rails'. Spend a lot of time yesterday to fix this rotonda and make it a presentable and remember putting the two 'tunnel' parts in as ducts, now seeing one is tagged waterway=stream and the shorter one waterway=drain. Think it has to be both one or the other.
cheers

I noticed a lot more. The missing tracks I've created from real traces and the obstacles were marked for a safe ride and thought to do a little extra based on past used tags to include the 12 that are presented when drilling from Ciclovia Adriatica Relation in OSM to that change set at Benedetto in the hyperlink of the wiki you 'corrected'. I'm hands off now. Few levels over my unpaid grade.

ciao

Only a beginners error on my part, copy paste straight from the location's webpage
https://www.d-piu.com/punti_vendita/d344-pescara/ Glad there's a validation system in place and someone gets notified with years of practise.
cheers

BTW, looking at the BI site trace on top of the OSM map on which I recognize many of my edits and additions, that trace http://www.bicitalia.org/it/bicitalia/gli-itinerari-bicitalia/131-bi6-ciclovia-adriatica is going to end you up dead, or the person who drew it could fly. Just look at the section front of the Tollo-Canosa Sanita rail station which I worked on extensively. Someone did fly or was in a GPS blackout zone and QA failed. Then there's a little segment near Punta Penna. It was lost to a landslide at least 5 years ago. It's fenced off, if you want you could scale the fence and risk falling off a cliff. That's 5 years. I've added a barrier both sides so actual routes planned against OSM maps stop bumping into those and give someone bad ideas to climb around it.

Yet, these wrong/superfluous tags are the ones that were on the initial change set you referred me to, it shows the Relation Cycle_route = Ciclovia Adriatica. I'm still unsure how that 'relation' comes alive, but the wiki says it needs big jsom computing effort, so any base relation should never exceed 300 members, and then all these sub sets can be connected with a superset.

I'll wait a day or so after having put on the tags from ortona to punta aderci, just needed one tag deletion, a few changes and 7 or so tag additions. The relations wiki speak of it needing a lot of time to generate the relations maps. See osm.wiki/Relation:route . Specifically Eurovelo gets a mention here, where they are just using the same infrastructure as the nat.societies do. At any rate, already see things popping out that seem to just be a product of backend OSM processes

As extract:

Common practice is not to create route relations with more than 250–300 members. If you need to create bigger relations, which could happen easily, make several reasonable-sized relations and unite them in a super-relation as mentioned above. Reasons:

Keep the relations editable.
Avoid conflicts. The bigger the relation the more likely it is that two users are working on it at the same time.
Save the server resources.
There is also a list of Monster Relations.

Ergo, not a good idea to put all against a single "Ciclovia Adriatia" relation.

Taking a break now. Tomorrow is another day, we (me) is doing this for free just to get get my cycle tour planning program to do it right the first time, as said earlier, it's 96-98 percent right now.

Just since June 3, that famous day now we could go outside of our street.

Errata: Following the Bicitalia site route, notice that though some sections are marked as being part of the BI-6 route, there's no relation registered in OSM.

The wiki referred with both ICN/NCN numbers is: osm.wiki/Italy/Ciclovie . It stands to reason that if BI-6 is extended, EV8 would follow suite, but given the Bicitalia site draws the BI-6 track all the way from Trieste to Santa Maria di Leuca way down south one would follow the other and the 'currency' of OSM is just way behind.
I prefer you show me in the linked map what's right and wrong in tags and to set up the relation. Got time on my hand and rode the subject track plus Pescara - Giulianova 3 times out and in i.e. seen it 6 times.

See my long comment to a change set at Benedetto

From your note, kindly look at this change set on one small section osm.org/edit#map=18/42.30576/14.45057 to which I added/changed the 12 tags that I found relating to the one you referred. What's thick as mud is, how the relation is added, the impression being that if you add just that, all the 12 tags get added, but educate me on that if you will..

I note the complete absence of technical information on that Benedetto section osm.org/edit?relation=1401870#map=17/42.98218/13.87350, no width, no colour, no pavement, shared, segregated et, all documented from 3 full day visits along the full extend in Abruzzo, go pro is great for that. Certainly, with the actual official signs put out in places in Abruzzo, I'm surprised that Bicitalia is not up to snuff with their 'operator' and not done the OSM updating work....Drawing a line on a map is easy. I've found hundreds upon hundreds of those, with the result that if I use the tour cycle routing software I'm finding myself either just peddling along the SS16 or SS5 or on a 30 degree uphill MTB track. At least now I got it in a state that that if I plan Pescara- Punta Penna, 95-98% actually does use the intended track, and that's 65km one way. Started doing this some month ago so surely I'm missing a lot.

cheers

The numbers come off an integrated wiki showing both NCN/ICN refs side by side i.e. BI6/EV8. Some sites have seemingly badly outdated info. Large Stretches between Ortona and Punta Penna are officially not open yet, but the public use has been facilitated. Was unaware some had already created a relation. The name I have comes off a formal track sign near Pineto Scerne, directing at "Ciclovia Adriatica BI-6, but I'm all for merging what was there and is new. I'll study this to see how to achieve this most efficiently,ASAP

To be complete, it's the just west of Carsoli then east till Tagliacozzo that got a different route name presently. At the very least a field should have been populated with the old route name. Routing system broen.

Think I figured it it why things no longer link up. The route name for the missing section was changed to Strada Regionale. The one who vigorously renumbered SS5 to SR5 from Bussi to Pescara did not touch the route name, maybe because s/he never saw the relevance of it. Anyway, so far only one endorsement comment on my publick note about this contentious issue (to me), ii.e. it should be SS5, period.

cheers.