Thank you for your understanding and help on all of this! I'm really happy the map has improved overall with all of these changes and for working with the concerns on this - The map feels better in this local area especially

Hm, I think I'd be leaning towards a + b, if only because the trail has some underlying concerns (not all places exist, the trail is in fact two different trails, no explicitly defined route and only landmarks)

I do feel bad to suggest this after the time it'd take to add and map - please know I do appreciate your time and effort on these!

If the landmarks could be added as more points of interest - if they aren't already, maybe this could be a middle ground - naturally the larger parks etc are marked, but I had noticed that the chainmakers shop was unmarked for example. I hadn't looked at all points

I do agree with your ways forward, I wouldn't have any concerns with those points

I understand this may be a lot of steps to work out, but I do appreciate your time and work on this and for being so open to the constructive criticism. Thank you for your thoughts on this too

No problem, if it helps I'll send a message then!

I think my concern with the sidewalks is that it stops even halfway along existing roads and paths, giving the appearance that the path stops when it does not in person.

For example Wrights Lane implies the path stops halfway. While the neighbour road (to the south) Great Western Drive, shows the path only on one side for a short while - This one in particular is completely correct. But then it is at odds of the other roads where only partial paths have been added where it appears a path may only exist on one side or not at all.

I also completely understand the undertaking of work to achieve such detail and only respect the time it takes - it just feels like this particular area was left in a worst state with this mix of information though, which I think is the crux of my concerns.

My other concern is how well integrated some of these are. I will fully admit this is outside of my scope and experience - but if you ask for directions which may use these sidewalks, they can show up as "unnamed road", making navigation harder for those using sidewalks. For a visual I have got this example for you to see https://ibb.co/ZR7B2hW7
From my rough understanding the sidewalks may have to be split and tagged to be part of a road, but I don't know enough on this personally, but wanted to point this out.

> I guess that puts up for debate the whole intention of what a heritage trail is for? I'd like to hear your perspective on this.
That's a fair question and point. I don't feel I'm really the best person here but personally I feel like if there was some form of plaque, sign etc it would make sense in a "this was once here" but I am not aware of any such thing.
This would also apply to the Chainshop - It's within the grounds of a local school, but even though at times I have walked past the location daily, there is zero information for the public to know that is has any significant historical value when in person.
On the flip side, areas such as the nature reserves, canals etc - while not obviously sign posted at every second, do tend to have some level of information (The Canal has information and at the Bumble hole visitor centre, Haden Hill at it's Entrance of Halesowen Road, etc)

I think when combined with the fact this trail isn't officially published or supported any more, has at least one location that doesn't exist, I would err on the side of "best not"

From a purely personal and knowingly objective view - if the trail were to stay on the map I would prefer it to stick to the existing roads and visual networks that do exist, rather than leaving partial information of pathways.

Thanks for being open and discussing this too, I appreciate your time and effort on the maps!

Just a quick message for your thoughts on the above?

Hi again,

Apologies if the links were not working, I'll explain with some images here - https://ibb.co/8LwhFMX7 This one here routes via Alwin road, while valid - you can simply stick to Powke Lane for a more direct route, it appears the footpath is confusing this routing

The previous one I tried to describe is again fixed by correcting the bridge and footpath, but prior to this the routing suggested the following https://ibb.co/HT7xQZc8 I at least want to point it out to help prevent any future errors!

Regarding the debate of separate side walks vs "part of the road", I'm aware it's a larger discussion in the community as a whole such as this megathread here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613 My opinion is it's an "all-or-nothing" approach, and as the local areas do not have separate side walks, it doesn't feel right to add it exclusively for something like a trail cutting through an area, as it can give the appearance of incomplete or limited amount of paths

> Whilst the route is old, the sites along it are all still in place as far as I am aware
The one I am unsure of would happen to be "The Municipal Buildings" (number 5, which is via Barrs Road) I've never seen it local or on surveys.

Some research myself appears to show that it was in the same spot that is now the local Fire Station (next to the Haden Hill Leisure Centre)
While I know it is taboo to reference other map services, the example I can provide for you to see (beyond taking my word for it) is Google street view towards the Fire station - it is removed some time between 2012 and 2016

I imagine that puts the whole trail into question?

Thanks for reply - I don't wish to come over as hostile, I just want the best for the map and local area!

Thanks for your reply! To answer your questions:

The routing for example gets confused in this example:
osm.org/directions?
engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=52.477138%2C-2.052279%3B52.475945%2C-2.046
804#map=18/52.476532/-2.049546
Where it should stick to Powke Lane

And previously it was getting confused on how to navigate Waterfall Lane Bridge ( osm.org/#map=19/52.472419/-2.055476 ) , where it would tell you to cross under to the canal, go under the bridge and back up to join a foot path on the other side
This specific case has been fixed for routing, as another user set the bridge state properly, but it does show the extra footpath as a separate "bridge" (or is certainly did before)

The PDF also mentions that the trail was in meant to be two separate trails "Each of the two routes is long and strenuous" so having the connecting section seems incorrect?

Regarding being added - I feel as the map is from 2009 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20091213212103/https://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/local-history-and-heritage/heritage-trail/walk-rowley-regis/ ), and the council no longer hosts or has this information, I'm not sure this is enough to be added (?). The referenced PDF was a re-upload from a 3rd party

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts from your side

I've noticed some concerns with this changeset. The added paths conflict with existing pathways connected to the existing roads, this is causing routing issues on the map, as well as creating things such as non existent bridges.

I have concerns of this trail as a whole too - as it is not sign posted in the world this doesn't seem to meet the requirements to be on the map, as well as the fact there's no exact trail on the PDF so there's no specific route to map.