I had a chance to visit these segments a couple days ago. The section next to the P-Patch is a nice, worn path which is tolerable on a bike. The section between 101st and 100th is just bumpy grass with no clear path and not fun on a bike. The two E-W segments touching Fremont are the same. So I think only the one segment should be bikes=yes but I don't know what to tag the others. All four should definitely be peds=yes. What do you think?

openstreetmap.org/way/301191511

Should they match 301191511? What's your source for bicycles=no?

I see neither highway=service nor surface tagged on ways 1448502407 and 1448502405

Plat map referenced in edit notes: https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/assessor/emap/InternetPDF/qs_NW192505.pdf

This edit is not good.
1. The name is not correct
2. This new way shows motor vehicles=yes but only connects the alley to the sidewalk. It should be connecting the alley to the street
3. Using the same Bing imagery that the mapper used as well as the King County 2023 imagery we can see there is some sort of structure in the middle of the line which likely makes it impassable
4. If we look at the county's plat map: https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/assessor/emap/InternetPDF/qs_NW332504.pdf we can see there is no right-of-way here; this is private property.

I am reverting the edit

#REVIEWED_BAD

You have completely miscategorized my edit. The edit summary says "Road closed for construction". According to the wiki the tag is used "for any type of highway...currently under construction and impassable by the traffic". Since there was a fence blocking access on the north end and there was adjacent construction activity this was the most logical tag. Accessing from the south was not and still is not possible as there is a gated facility which appears to be owned by WSDOT. Admittedly I didn't mention the fence in that changeset, but you definitely jumped to the wrong conclusion thinking that the tag was added for the purposes of "access by construction vehicles". I will note that vehicles would likely not have been able to traverse that road for the construction of the houses as this road would be outside the lot lines: the way is drawn on freeway right-of-way: https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/assessor/emap/InternetPDF/qs_NW172504.pdf

You claim I failed to add the fence as mention in the comment. You are half right. See way/454116173: the existing barrier's geometry was updated to reflect closer to where it meets the sidewalk. I failed to update the tags, and I have since fixed that.

The reason I deleted the way was very clearly mentioned in changeset/171005060: there is a fence here, not a gate. At best, the road would need to be detached from its northern intersection, but realistically it's not clear if there's really a road here anymore. There are vehicles blocking visual sight lines from the south which makes it difficult to see if there's a road or if this is just barren land.

These real-world changes are newer than any imagery available in the area. I can assure you that the outline of the building for way/216577897 is inaccurate but I do not have information to accurately re-draw them without updated aerial imagery. I only know of these two low-resolution images: https://blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRealProperty/pictures.aspx?ParcelNbr=2603370000&View=0&BldgId=0 the second of which accurately depicts the new fence.

In March 2024 I visited way/454116174 and noticed it was fenced off and that the houses at the northern terminus of this way were under construction so I changed this to highway=construction. Today I visited and noticed the houses are complete and there is a permanent fence on both sides of this way, and it is not accessible to any mode. So why did you remove highway=construction?

Ways 1415684477 and 78 should be highway=footway and footway=sidewalk instead of highway=path. I've made the necessary changes

Nobody said you need to remove it. You just need to mark private things as private. I already updated this segment, but if you have added others please update them.

The walkways are all private property as per the county plat map: https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/assessor/emap/InternetPDF/qs_NW272404.pdf

Thank you for the information. I have updated the way

Natfoot why are you adding paths in people's yards? I just had to fix way/1328598032 because it is on private property. Don't really see much value in having it on the map anyways

Thank you. I have verified with the county plat map: https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/assessor/emap/InternetPDF/qs_SE102503.pdf that it is indeed public. I visited the location last night, and the nearby homeowner has landscaped the public ROW to make it appear as private property

@lukobe What is your source for this? way/1276246620 is just somebody's yard

The situation is significantly more nuanced than you understand. It is clear you have not fully read and understood the T&C. Please go back and re-read them in its entirety. Quoting five words does not indicate that you have read the 2,600 the terms contain.

Next, please review how the Street View product works. Does anything in there say "paved"? Of course not. The imagery does not contain that data. Nor can we conclusively decide that this way is indeed paved from an image alone. For that we need to combine with other sources, such as the local transportation authority, to confirm the different surfaces that they use for protected bikeways. In this case, that is Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), and PBOT uses green-tinted concrete to denote pathways used exclusively for cyclists. None of that data is contained in any Google product.

If this changeset had used Google's imagery to infer the shape of the lane to create or edit it, you would be right, that is a clear cut violation of the terms. However no data from any Google product has been directly used to create this changeset. Your blanket statements of "anything that says Google is not allowed" is misleading and misinformed.

Finally, you have exhibited a gross misunderstanding of how the terms are applied. If a contributor violates the terms, OSM is not a party to the violation. Further, this is not a "test" of the lawyers. This is real map data that your fellow humans depend on.

Ignore OSM for a moment. Imagine you look at street view and notice some natural features. You tell your friend "this would be a good place to go running." By your definition, that is content generation. Your definition is asinine and not consistent with the terms and conditions defined by Google

No Google data was used in the making of this edit. If you feel otherwise, please paste the offending data in its entirety. All of Google's data remains in their custody and has not been reproduced in any shape or format

No content was created based off the data in street view. It was only used as verification that these segments--like their siblings--are paved

Apologies for removing the boundary; I'm not sure how that happened.

With regard to Google's TOS, I suggest you read that again. Nothing in the TOS prohibits viewing images to confirm a path's surface and using that data elsewhere.