Hi Bobby,

I would appreciate to get a reaction on this.

Thanks,

Martin.

Ja, dat in inderdaad een knap onlogisch kruispunt voor fietsers, niet gezien toen ik de wijzigen maakte.

Prima dat je die mapper hebt geholpen en prima oplossing,

Bedankt!

> Sorry I’m not sure what specific segment of the road you are referring to

You can see that using the achavi link I gave, here you can find them:

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#item=3032&zoom=17&lat=-43.558548&lon=172.547847&level=2

Okay, I missed the oneway:bicycle=yes because the "cycleway" is mapped as highway=path as is normal in Germany.

I am used to map these paths as highway=cycleway and then the map will show an arrow indicating the direction, so yes that is something I missed.

Hi Cody,

Why did you add "bicycle=no" to Awatea Road in this changeset? The road has also cycleway=lane

See also https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=96406391

Hi Antoine,

Pourquoi avez-vous ajouté "bicycle=no" et "foot=no" et "horse=no" sur la D 957 ?

Il y a "cycleway=lane"

https://imgur.com/a/K3JM7Vn

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=94270826

NB: I prefer communicating in English ;-)

Hi Strubbl,

I am never blindly following a Osmose warning and correcting them, I always look into the details as there is always the choice to either correct the bicycle or the cycleway tags and if you see my commit history that differs per problem.

With the knowledge we have now you are right and I understand why you think a note would be better.

I correct a lot of these issues, but if I do not trust things I typically make a note in the commit that caused the problem and this did not look suspect like I said because on the other side of the road there is a bidirectional cycleway and CreCrePL did not look like a beginner to me.

Naar mijn idee is er in ieder geval iets te veel weg gehaald, alleen het brugdeel is weg, niet de aanbruggen en daar is wel een deel van verwijderd.

Hi Strubbl,

I see there is also a discussion on this on osm.org/changeset/102796204#map=14/48.1339/11.6174 and I think that is the better place.

I did document the reason for my changes in the description and checked bicycle access is still possible as there is a bi-directional cycleway on the other side of the road.

I did react in osm.org/note/2644552 but this is once more a side effect of moving the name tag from the outer way to the relation.

If you are sure things are incorrect and know how to correct it, please do so.

Hoi Jasper,

De Kabouterroute lijkt compleet maar heeft nog steeds "fixme=incomplete"

Is dat het geval of kan "fixme=incomplete" verwijderd worden?

Groeten,

Martin.

Inderdaad echt moeilijk is het niet, inmiddels weer ingecheckt: osm.org/changeset/102820360

Ik denk dat beginnende mappers niet aan z'n fietsroute herleggen beginnen ;-)

Goed, bedankt voor je oplettendheid!

Leo,

Op osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter lees ik:

Do not revert changes by other users without contacting them first in a polite way and giving them enough time to reply (one week minimum). Broken data can be fixed easily, but a broken community is not so easy to restore. :)

Dat had ik liever gezien, ik had vrij makkelijk die ene weg kunnen corrigeren en rest van de data nog even dubbel nakijken. Nu is dat allemaal een stuk moeilijker geworden.

Bedankt, okay, ik zie het osm.org/way/527960151. Niet gezien.

Ik denk dat ik ga proberen de changeset er weer in te hangen met deze weg gecorrigeerd.

Sorry @Noudejans, I only did read your reply after writing the reply above.

Good you check the local infrastructure and update OSM on it!

Currently the "Avenue Van Praet - Van Praetlaan" is completely mapped with "bicycle=use_sidepath" so I think that covers "not suited"

FYI: What triggered me initially is an Osmose warning saying there was bicycle=use_sidepath and cycleway=track, see http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=3032&class=30329 Currently there are no problem detected for whole Belgium.

When I edited 317100591 I only added segregated=yes and changed the geometry

For 317100584 you are correct, I made an error adding lanes:forward=2.

I see you corrected things, osm.org/changeset/101094463, thanks!

Thanks for sharing that link @Thierry1030.

Yes, that looks quite unsafe, if you follow Mapillary you see the cyclist, filipc did make the choice to cross the road to the other side where the is some path that is not clearly signed but mapped as cycleway.

Just checked and there is a main road that is mapped as "bicycle=use_sidepath". I am not 100% that is 100% correct as the path has no sign as far as I can see but it looks appropriate here.

Where filipc did cross the road looks unsafe but 40 meter before it there is a crossing with traffic light that seems like a good choice.

Looking at the details it looks to me things are correctly mapped, good bicycle routers will take the correct roads.

NB: My mother language is Dutch, so feel free to switch, but English is also perfectly fine.

Which roads that are too dangerous to cycle on are we talking about? I had a look at Mapillary images yesterday and see there was a separated track and that looks safe enough for me, see for example https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.88914293777776&lng=4.35706397499996&z=17&pKey=z2n2LHt5-zqbSfMHn81EwQ&focus=photo

So either you are talking about another road (please share a Mapillary link if possible) or your standards on what is safe to cycle are different.

In this changeset osm.org/way/356366271 bicycle=yes has been removed and bicyle=no and access=no added.

I think that is strange:

1) is the road really not accessible to all users? (access=no)
2) bicycle=no does in combination with cycleway=track does not make sense.

Can you indicate what is the real situation?

Thanks,

Martin.