Hi, it is just the name of the Swedish wikipedia article. I'm not sure how official it is.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huvudstadsregionen_(Danmark)

Hi, I have reverted this changeset as you made the road that runs through Örebro Resecentrum a zigzag by moving the bus stop nodes to the platforms.

changeset/170744157

Hi, why have you changed this road to be two separate ways? The road is not a dual carriageway so it should not be mapped like this.

osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway#:~:text=Roads%20are%20not,barrier%20to%20vehicles.

Tack :)

Hi, I've changed it to a footpath.

Hi, I've changed it to a footpath.

Hi, the DfI report contained in this council document refers to that section of road as the B109.
https://www.ardsandnorthdown.gov.uk/images/assets/CS_14.01.20_Web_Papers.pdf

Hi,
Based on this email exchange (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-se/2018-December/003510.html), it is my understanding that Lantmäteriet allows individual OSM users to use their orthophotos for mapping, although they do not allow them to be used in the editors.

Jag har fixat det nu :)

Jag tror inte att det är tillåtet att cykla här eftersom övergångsstället (node/10161952474) ser ut att vara avsett endast för fotgängare, enligt flygbilderna. Den finns inte heller med i NVDB-uppgifter.
Jag har tagit bort "foot=yes" nu.

Ursäkta att det var ett misstag, jag har lagt tillbaka dem nu.

Hej, jag separerade den här delen av cykelvägen eftersom den är avgränsad av en kantsten. De andra delarna av vägen har cykelbanor på vägen (separerade med färg), så dessa måste vara cycleway=lane på bilvägen. Jag håller med dig om att det skulle möjliggöra mer kartdetaljer om det kunde vara separat highway=cycleway, men vi måste följa wikin så att kartdata följer samma standarder överallt.

Jag har ändrat min åsikt och håller nu med dig. Jag har ändrat det till unclassified.

Jag anser att eftersom endast bussar tillåts köra på denna väg, ger den inte tillträde till bostadshus, så den kan inte vara "highway=residential". På den wikisida som du skickade står det att "Most traffic on a residential road will be for the access to, or from, residential properties. Roads carrying through traffic, or non-residential traffic, should instead be tagged with another highway tag".

Vägen har nyligen byggts om så det är därför den inte stämmer överens med NVDB.

I changed them as they have more traffic than the surrounding streets but change them back if you want

I'd argue that at the junction it’s necessary to map it as separate ways for navigation, but for the cycle lanes, it's not. It is also a universal convention to map junctions like that, but it's not for the cycle lanes, as there is already an agreed upon way to map them. If there was a way to map the cycle lanes as separate ways, but somehow tag them as lanes, then that would be fine, but as far as I know, there isn't. Even the highway=cycleway wiki page says: "When not to use: Cycling infrastructure that is an inherent part of a road - particularly "cycle lanes" which are a part of the road"

I'm glad that you now understand what I was badly trying to explain before :) I tried to join the pavements to the road where to curb is lowered, but maybe I got this wrong. I also did it to improve navigation, not to look good on the map.
I think that mappers always have to strike a balance between mapping what's on the ground and mapping to aid navigation. For example, if this junction osm.org/#map=19/54.59579/-5.91000 was mapped according to precisely what's on the ground, then the centre of it would just be a square area of asphalt. Instead, to aid navigation and usability, the road ways continue across the junction, and ways for right turning vehicles are added.
I have no idea why waymarkedtrails doesn't render the forward and backward tags, it seems a pretty obvious feature to have. If you want, could get in touch with the people that run the site and ask them to add it. Anyway, I encourage you to still use the tags, as even though you won't see them in waymarkedtrails, other people using other renderers will.
Using taginfo.openstreetmap.org I found some roads tagged with lanes=0. As far as I can see, these roads are rendered as normal, as it is assumed that it is a mistake. I recommend that you don't do this, as again it implies that there is physical separation.

Again, thank you for replying
I agree with you that the meaning of tags can change over time, but I do not believe that there is any consensus to change this at the moment- maybe I am wrong on this? I think that it follows the same logic that is used for the mapping of main roads. If there is physical separation between the two sides of the road then it is mapped as two separate ways, but if there is no separation then it is always mapped as one. I believe the cycle lane tagging follows the same logic- there needs to be physical segregation to merit a separate way.
I do acknowledge that the cycle route on the Saintfield road renders awkwardly, but I think that it is much more important to have a map which uses accurate tags, than one which sacrifices this in order to look a bit better. I think that a user would just want to know which road the road follows- which precise bit of the road they cycle on would become clear when they get there.
I think that you misunderstood my point about the pavements. I have changed a few here osm.org/#map=19/54.57414/-5.91382 as a demonstration as to what I meant. This allows a routing program, such as a handheld satnav, to form a route along the pavement.
For an explanation of the forward and backward tags (for cycle routes) and left and right tags (for cycle lanes) please read this wiki article: osm.wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right. It explains it better than I could. Here is an example of how the forward and backward tags render in OpenCycleMap: osm.org/#map=18/51.50045/-0.12665&layers=C. It appears not to render in WaymarkedTrails: (https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=18!51.5007!-0.1272).

Thank you for replying.
Firstly, you quoted the key:cycleway wiki page ('For high level of complexity ...,consider drawing the track as its own way, parallel to the road'. ) Note that this refers to a "track", not a lane. The same wiki page says: "A cycle track is separated from the road by curbs, parking lots, grass verges, trees or another physical barrier". The Ravenhill cycle lanes have no such segregation, so it is inappropriate to map them as tracks.
There is a convention in OpenStreetMap that we should not change the way something is mapped in order for it to look better in a particular renderer. You can read more about it here: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer (although I acknowledge that the examples in that page are more extreme than this). The main principle is that mappers should add correct data, and that it is up to the renderer to interpret it.
I think that adding incorrect data can cause confusion. For example, tracks and lanes are rendered differently on OpenCycleMap (as solid and dashed blue lines respectively). An unconfident cyclist, who may wish to stick to segregated tracks for their journey could be misled by inaccurate mapping.
I think that it could be argued that with your method, more positional detail can be shown, but I also think that it is more important to use correct tags, which follow the established conventions.
I do not understand your point on the left and right lane tags. These refer to the direction of the way, and should not be affected by the side of the road that you drive on.
Regarding cycle route relations, adding the main road, in my view, still clearly represents the route. If it is needed the "forward" and "backward" tags can be added to the way in the relation to give one-way functionality.
I do not dispute that the Connswater Greenway example shows a lot of detail, but it also implies that Grand Parade has segregated cycle tracks, which is incorrect. I think that the same detail could be shown by just having the pavement as a separate way. In fact, I am a fan of pavements being mapped as separate ways, so please continue doing this! However, please join up the ends of pavement ways to the road, so that they can be used for routing (for example a user will never be routed onto this way way/659343290 because it does not connect to anything else. Routing software needs a direct connection between ways in order to calculate a route.

Cycle lanes should be added with the cycleway=lane tag (or cycleway:left=lane etc) on the road, as they are considered to be a part of it. Can you please change how you mapped this.