That's great, thanks for that

Thanks for your understanding!

Thanks for your understanding!

Hey,

In relation to the cycle lane that you added as a separately mapped way:

Please pay attention to the cycle lanes/tracks that have already been added by others using cycleway tags on the way that is the centreline of the roadway. e.g. at Stillorgan Road (osm.org/way/481561458)

For example, there is already
cycleway:left=track
...along a part of this road where you have added a separate cycleway. Your addition conflicts with these tags. This conflict should be resolved somehow.

Accordingly, I want to point out the guidance given on the OSM wiki at this page osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway#When_not_to_use and the various other pages which that page links to, in case you weren't aware.

Thanks

Hey,

In relation to the cycle tracks that you added as separately mapped ways:

Please pay attention to the cycle lanes/tracks that have already been added by others using cycleway tags on the way that is the centreline of the roadway. e.g. at Constitution Hill (osm.org/way/370381577)

There is already
cycleway:both=lane
cycleway:both:lane=exclusive
...along a part where you have added a separate cycleway. Your addition conflicts with these tags. This conflict should be resolved somehow.

Accordingly, I want to point out the guidance given on the OSM wiki at this page osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway#When_not_to_use and the various other pages which that page links to, in case you weren't aware.

Thanks

The northbound cycle lane here is not really redundant when used in combination with the cycleway:right=separate tag, because "separate" has a special meaning unlike the other values of the cycleway tag.
If the value was something like cycleway:right=lane, then yes,that would be redundant if there was already a separately mapped cycle lane.

When the value of the cycleway tag is "separate" that means the cycle lane/track was drawn as a separate way. It's not a requirement to put that value in when mapping a cycle lane/track as a separate way, but some choose to do so.

About the southbound cycle arrangements on Lombard Street with the parallel car parking, it's a tricky one. In my opinion this should just be a cycleway:left=lane on the main road way since it's so close to the road and you can technically enter/leave the general traffic lanes in the gaps between parked cars without a kerb obstructing your way. However as the car parking on this road does distance the southbound cycle lane from the general traffic lanes, I imagine some would argue that this merits a cycleway:left=track or even a separately drawn way.

I've made a small update on this road to keep the separately drawn way because I don't like to undo effort of drawing a separate way when it is technically valid.

Hey, welcome to OSM.

This cycle lane wasn't missing from Lombard Street.
It is already mapped using the cycleway tag here: osm.org/way/49974586#map=19/53.34478/-6.24886

See osm.wiki/Key:cycleway for more about this approach to mapping cycle lanes.

Your approach of mapping a cycle lane/track as a separate way is common in some cases, but not typically done for a cycle lane like this which is an inherent part of the road.

I'm not here to convince to you choose one cycle lane/track mapping approach over the other, but to make sure you are aware of these two approaches.

Using both approaches for the same section of cycle lane/track should not be done as it results in duplication of information. So you should either keep the separetely mapped way, or change/remove the cycleway tags on the main road way.

The CycleOSM map layer is a handy way to see what cycle facilities have been mapped. The map layer can be changed in the menu on the right hand side of the screen on osm.org, if you didn't know.

Is there really an ATM here?

I'm not challenging your choice to map the footpath as a separate way. I respect that your approach is one of several acceptable approaches.

1. I don't see why OSM cannot accommodate mapping for both vulnerable and non-vulnerable classes of footpath users.

If you feel that a connection which somebody added between a footpath and road is unsafe for use by a subset of footpath users, then the solution is to tag it as such, rather than delete it.

I imagine that tags such as osm.wiki/Key:wheelchair and osm.wiki/Key:tactile_paving and osm.wiki/Key:kerb and osm.wiki/Key:lit would be useful when it comes to placing importance on the safety of vulnerable users?

For example if you deem an otherwise valid connection that somebody added unsafe to use because it involves a raised kerb, the solution is to map the raised kerb rather than deleting the connection.

2. In the example journeys I gave, there are crossings (with dished kerbs too) at the t-junctions of roads along the route (see See osm.org/node/10754018268 and osm.org/node/10754018234 for example of such locations), but you neglected to connect your footpath with the road at those locations.

It is when connections such as osm.org/way/1180320076 are deleted that the separately mapped footpaths become the only option for the router. Consequently, if the separately mapped footpath isn't connected to the road at the applicable pedestrian crossing points along the way, we end up with these convoluted pedestrian navigation routes.

Have a good night.

Are you saying you want to ensure that the navigation is safe for vulnerable road users?

The walking distance for this trip is 224 metres (your change hasn't taken effect in routing terms yet) osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=53.27359%2C-6.35571%3B53.27375%2C-6.35324#map=19/53.27371/-6.35417

Once your change takes effect, the walking distance will increase by about 100 metres. This doesn't reflect the reality of what route a pedestrian would actually take to reach that destination from that origin.

Here is another example.
870 metres walking distance.
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=53.27902%2C-6.35530%3B53.28299%2C-6.35576#map=17/53.28114/-6.35252

Same origin and destination as above, but in google maps: 450 metres walking distance.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/53.2790614,-6.3552574/53.2830658,-6.3556906/@53.2812425,-6.3551525,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e3?entry=ttu

I would ask that when deleting the footpath connection that existed at the end of a cul-de-sac and creating a separate highway=footway alongside a highway=* road, you ensure that connections are added at junctions with other roads so that pedestrian navigation is not compromised like this.

Hi, please explain why you are removing connections between footpaths and roads?
This is detrimental to navigation use cases.

Hi, it's difficult to tell from your changeset description what you've done, but I've seen several cases of houses and housing estate roads/greens that were once covered by a residential area no longer being covered by a residential area where you are the last person to change those residential areas.

Can you explain why you are reducing the coverage of mapped residential areas to not cover greens and roads, in many cases cul-de-sacs, whose main purpose is for use by residents of the houses covered by said residential area?

Hi, the cycle lanes are already mapped on Rock Road, see `cycleway` tag e.g. osm.org/way/4899944#map=18/53.30366/-6.18527

I found it mapped as a (non-mini) roundabout with one of the nodes on the circle being a mini roundabout tag on one of the nodes in the circular way. I wasn't certain that it was a mini roundabout so decide to simply delete the mini roundabout tag and keep the circular way.

Hi, if the English name is a correct translation it should be retained in name:en tag rather than deleted altogether.

Hi.
Why was the footpath between Killakee View and Ballycullen Drive deleted?

Hi.
Why was the footpath between Kilakee Walk and Firhouse Shopping Centre deleted?

Thanks, I joined the list, but I'm waiting for another email to be sent in that thread, so I have something in my inbox which enables me to reply in the thread.

There are merits to each approach. The internationally practiced approaches are compatible with Ireland.
osm.wiki/Bicycle gives sufficient guidance.

1. Yes, not good to have a conflicting approaches. I prefer tagging on the roadway for the most part, but to convince everyone to use one consistent approach, and replace everything that has already been mapped, is just not feasible.

2. Yes of course.

3. That is unfortunate. I haven't seen what it actually looks like on a Garmin, but I find it hard to lay the blame on osm data for a map readability issue.

4. To give some examples,
when I'm going to cycle to somewhere far away that I've never cycled to before, I sometimes find it useful to know which roads have cycle lanes/tracks, e.g. to plan a route that is faster/safer/less hilly/more direct/more enjoyable/[insert preference here].
Someone could also do this to optimise their commute to work/school etc.

I suppose someone could analyse the data using a tool such as overpass turbo to generate statistics about cycle provisions in a given area if they wanted to. This statistical information could then be used for many purposes.