> (in England and Wales) not always. It depends on whether you're dealing with a highway=footway that could also be tagged footway=sidewalk or one that could also be tagged designation=public_footpath.

Indeed, yes, in the special case of designation, one would naturally expect the mapper to state this explicitly. footway=sidewalk would still be expected to behave as highway=footway.

> Cycle access is undefined by default for footways in OSM so in the absence of any explicit tagging cycle routers treat them as legitimate routes

We disagree. highway=footway implies bicycle=dismount. Just as highway=motorway implies bicycle=no. It is the same kind of situation as junction=roundabout implies oneway=yes, or highway=primary implies surface=asphalt. It is the job of a good routing engineer who understands OSM and highways law to add in these assumptions. As otherwise the OSM database ends up with vast amounts of redundant tags for things that are obvious, meaning (a) the exception cases are hard to spot and (b) useful data like surface is obscured alongside excess tags. Were bicycle=dismount to be added to every sidewalk, there would just as equally be an argument to add surface=asphalt etc., which is clearly not optimal.

> If a cycle router returns a route showing a pavement highlighted in a big thick green line then you must anticipate cyclists will ride that route rather than read the small print disclaimer

Just to note that we explicitly show walk sections as dashed, as per the first example given.

Bicycle=no is what should be used for cases like not being allowed to walk a cycle through a pedestrianised shopping centre. I.e. dismounting is not enough: it is a hard no.

Our position is that bicycle=dismount is the correct tag to use, whereas bicycle=no means you cannot even walk the bicycle through an area, which is the original meaning of this distinction and has been in place in our router since 2008. The distinction exists for a reason, else the two tags would not both exist. However, we would like to see a walking-with-bike-not-allowed tag to handle this better though. There is also the need for an advisory-dismount style tag to handle the UK scenario of 'Cyclists dismount' signs, which really means 'The local authority suggests purely for liability reasons that you might wish to dismount, but you can legally cycle'.

We disagree with this removal for the reason that these are well-established informal paths, providing utility outside the festival period. Burning Man paths are similarly kept alive between festivals.

This should be reverted.

See comment:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/glastonbury-festival-temporary-event-mapping/132207/3

Ah, sorry, will do next time, thank you.

The above comment is moved to changeset/152755535 where the way was created.

way/1292824574 should be removed because the cycleway along Huntingdon Road is more correctly modelled by the cycleway=track or cycleway=lane properites of the highway=primary. Cyclists riding on the cycleway on Huntingdon Road do not have to give way when passing side roads, which is one of the main reasons why the cycleway is part of the road, not a separate way.

way/1292824574 should be removed because the cycleway along Huntingdon Road is more correctly modelled by the cycleway=track or cycleway=lane properites of the highway=primary. Cyclists riding on the cycleway on Huntingdon Road do not have to give way when passing side roads, which is one of the main reasons why the cycleway is part of the road, not a separate way.

Do you know why way/24157948 has lost it's cycleway status?

Great, thanks both for all your attention on this. No worries, AllotmentCyclist - it's great that you spotted the earlier problem anyway!

> I think there is only one way which you have marked as a "Busway" . This one
way/235913817/history

If you look at the history there, you can see we haven't changed the tagging at all. The only change to that way will be that we joined on the cycleway coming from the north, i.e. added a node. It was already set as busway and bicycle=designated beforehand.

I suggest you add foot=yes if you are concerned that walk routing engines wouldn't imply that highway=busway assumes sidewalk=yes.

Sounds like this is an oversight. Can you give an example of a specific way? We included foot=yes or left existing foot tags in place, so am not sure which way/ways you meant. Happy to correct any mistakes.

> please, be carefull with bus routes.

Disculpes, saps quin error he comès? Vaig tenir cura d'assegurar una relació completa, però devia haver perdut alguna cosa.

És molt emocionant veure els canvis a Glories. Fins i tot durant l'últim mes ha estat sorprenent veure el progrés a les línies de tramvia.

PS He corregit durant l'últim mes les ubicacions de les vies bici per la zona, especialment a l'oest, que estaven obsoletes.

The ramp has around seven flat areas along it, which enable wheelchair users to rest.

There is currently no documented OSM tag. So we have made up the tag in expectation of future support. If you can find a better tag, e.g. wheelchair_resting=yes or whatever, please do change.

Great - thanks a lot.

OK, pedestrian connectivity added in: changeset/121070404

La fonte della geometria è stata una visita di persona, nella tua meravigliosa città.

Un buon punto circa il tagging di accesso. Ora riparato:

changeset/120720262

La fuente de la geometría fue una visita en persona, a tu maravillosa ciudad.

Buen punto sobre el etiquetado de acceso. Ahora arreglado en:
changeset/120720262

---
[en:]

The source of geometry was a visit in person, to your wonderful city.

Good point about the access tagging. Now fixed in:
changeset/120720262