Thank you!

Reference link: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-cycleways-in-estonia/104894

The city has made thousands of mistakes, and that's the reason for my project :) I just want some way of differentiating crossings designated for bikes and pure pedestrian crossings. If you have a suggestion better than bicycle=yes/designated, I'm all ears :)

I have no opinion on way separation, both would be okay :) To me what matter is that the "designated" value reflects the signs and markings.

Hi Raio Rene! I see you've changed way/49521671/history to have bicycle=designated tag. Did you find any signs or road markings supporting that? I changed it to =yes because I could not.

Hey Raio Rene! You have updated the cycleway here, and having surveyed it in detail before for the https://rattateed.osmz.ee/ project, I have questions.

You have marked the crossings with bicycle=designated. Meaning there should be signs or road markings designating those as shared. Are there really? If I remember correctly, there are even signs "end of a shared path" at the intersections.

Also, the Mapillary photo you're referencing is from 2020. I can confirm there are signs from the both sides in 2026. I have photos, but no way to attach them here.

You have added bicycle=designated to some roads. I work near there and can confirm those roads have no signs marking them as shared/bicycle, neither any road markings. I kept bicycle=yes on those to keep the bicycle network connected, but I removed designated because there's no signs. What's the reason for reinstating those tags?

Also, you have added bicycle=designated to way/1384389869 . Are there really signs or road markings designating this stretch as a bicycle paths? I could not find those a month ago.

Hey Martinus, you have changed bicycle paths at the Kotka × Tedre intersection, altering their widths and oneway tags. Could you please explain from where you got the data?

I was there and measured everything, and the new values feel a bit incorrect to me. For example, you've deleted the bicycle crossing with the width I measured of 240 cm and added a new one with the width of 150 cm. Was it reconstructed in the past month?

Hey Martinus, you have added width=1.5 to some bicycle paths here. How did you measure that width?

Asking because I maintain the mapping project https://rattateed.osmz.ee/

Hey Martinus, you have changed widths of some cycleways near the Tondi viadukt. How exactly did you measure those?

Asking because I've updated widths after manually measuring those with a tape measure. Were those incorrect?

It's just painted lines. Nobody there keeps to the correct side. Paint is not infrastructure. I mark segregated cycleways when there is something more substantial, like kerbs along the Türnpu tn. In this case, it's practically shared.

Although I'm not married to this segment and can bear having it marked as a segregated cycleway :)

I will change back, thanks for informing. I read that incorrectly as you reverting my changeset, sorry for being harsh.

Wtf. All my changes related to bicycle roads were made after in-person survey. Please do not assume otherwise. You can find my notes at https://geoscribble.osmz.ru/map#17/59.42961/24.77701 — displayed are only those that were made under two months ago.

Yup, I absolutely agree. Even tried to add it to the default presets, but that got rejected: https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/1490

In this specific case, yes, those are the same. But generally I use `cycleway:width` for the narrowest point on the way, considering lamp posts and fences. So it all depends on a location.

Hey Gregor, thanks for correcting me! I've removed the childcare: node/11335476972

haha

I saw that's a shop, but could not determine a type, so I left it TBC. Thank you for reminding me! I've googled around, and decided to go with office=company, since I still have no idea :)