The horrible left I was talking about is Fairmount westbound left/southeast onto Kelly Drive, which is an illegal turn anyway (no legal left turn). But way/337636428 (crossing) is still bicycles=no, as are nearly all of the adjacent sidewalks. There really needs to be a way for routing algorithms to route from westbound Fairmount onto the bike path that doesn't involve a left onto Pennsylvania and right on 25th. Because any rider who isn't comfortable with Pennsylvania's various bike lanes won't do that. Or maybe I'm totally off base and missing something. Another bad example is crossing way/667922872
and sidewalk/footway way/629303021, which seems to be wide enough to accommodate bikes too. Unless the expectation is that bike traffic use 25th/Harnoncourt and the crossing there.

What are the chances! I was just looking at this area and saw you edited the Kelly Drive bike path today! Could you take a look at way/1388278462? It seems unreasonable for it to be a footway with bicycle=no when this way and the all the nearby crossings (ditto =no) are the only way to access the path from Fairmount (without that horrible left turn onto Kelly Dr). What do you think?

Also, I recently changed the Two Rivers Trail way relation back to regional, instead of local, and I hope this is something you're okay with. Since the TRT spans multiple local municipalities across Northampton County and both intersects and overlaps with the D&L, I think that's a strong case for it to be a regional "rcn" bike network. Regional networks render in CyclOSM and OCM at higher zoom altitudes and for this reason alone I think it's best suited as regional instead of local. I hope that makes sense and is all right with you!

I've seen a lot of misuse of access aisles (not you! just generally) but I think they're pretty clear (when they are, at least). As for algorithms, I might sometimes spot check something in BRouter.de but mostly, if something doesn't work in RidewithGPS, I'll make changes in OSM. Thanks for reaching out. I'm glad we had this discussion. Please feel free to tag how you think is best, as I don't live anywhere near Forks Twp anymore (and only visit a few times a year, if that). I trust your local knowledge and discretion!

Or in cases where a paved asphalt path ends at a concrete sidewalk with no curb cut, I don't think it's helpful that that path be tagged for bikes unless it's specifically designated and there's a reason (or a connecting sidewalk to a curb cut).

Hello! You make a good point; somehow, for some reason, I missed the words "dedicated bike path" from the key at the bottom right. But I also tend to map with deference to what's physically present on the ground, and the FTT paths don't have any signs indicating use. In cases where a source map and physical trail signage are inconsistent, I defer to what's physically there because most trail users are probably unaware that this map exists. Also, in some cases, and despite any maps, I think any path that dead-ends at a building, playground, parking lot, etc. should be a foot path and not indicated for bike travel because anyone on a bike is interested in staying moving on a through-route and probably not interfering with playing kids, etc. The Great OSM Path Controversy doesn't really acknowledge this like I think it should. But you're right, in this case, I think we should make the FTT trails' paths =designated.

Hey, can you confirm whether the repair stands/pumps at 4th & Pearl and the Public Library are still there? I didn't see them recently. If they are there, are their pin locations correct?

Thanks for adding it to the street instead of as separate geometry! I've been doing a lot of this sort of clean-up lately. Please spread the word!

Hi there. I don't think this edit worked the way you hoped it would. The direction of the road should match the way it was drawn. You can reverse it using the right click menu or the "v" key. The way it's currently tagged with oneway:bicycle=no means that the map now says riders can salmon this one-way bike lane. Let me know if any of this doesn't make sense or if you want some help!

I mean to say that the preset feature type is Trench but the tag is barrier=ditch, not barrier=trench.

Hi. Please be advised that the straight, parallel ways you draw as paths are actually firebreaks and should be tagged as barrier=trench. This is to keep people on designated paths to lessen the impact on the environment. I've retagged them for now, but in the future, please reach out if you have any questions.

Hi, could you fix this way? Looks like it got pulled and snapped. way/975131473#map=18/39.952799/-75.184317

Hi there. This roadway and way way/651014475 must be highway=primary because they are part of WI-32 and are a state trunk roadway. They are residential, true, but not predominately.

Lake Huron has been broken for several years; many of us assume it's a broken relation. Would you be willing and able to take a look? https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCAEPLP33/p1746564448677079

I don't believe Main Street in Eagle River is private. Is this correct or was this a mistake?

Thanks for adding so many track roads to the Keweenaw! Your work has not gone unnoticed!

Ah, I see. Frankly, I have no idea. Technically, since they are separate objects and surfaces/materials from the roadway itself, a case could be made for highway=cycleway (preset feature Cycle Path). But I would argue since drivers must necessarily drive into and across them to park, I think cycleway:right/left=lane is still the best for the entire stretch of elevated bike lanes on Bay St.

Hi there - have you thought any more about this? I've been riding it more frequently lately and making some observations and notes, and I really do believe that retagging these cycletracks onto the roadways is the right way to go. If they were fully grade-separated or constructed separately of a different material, I think then it would be more accurate to have them as separate objects. But VB & Holton weren't even resurfaced (mostly), they just slapped down some paint lines on VB and jersey barriers on Holton. Retagging them onto the roadways would simplify a lot of future editing, and they'd still render pretty much the same too.

Good catch with this! =track is really incorrect - drivers must driver into the bike lanes just to park! Track never should've been tagged. Thanks, MEH!

I think it'd be more accurate to change the access tags for closed slip lanes to all=no, since they weren't designed or built to be pedestrian streets. Doing so wouldn't prevent algorithmic routing to/from the crosswalk. Also, it's possible that without all=no, the roadway itself will still render on some map services and indicate to drivers that they could still use it. as a roadway. It exists, but it's closed pending removal, so I think all=no is the best option. Curious what you think too.