An exaggerated example of this would be for, say, pedestrian routing on a sidewalk that intersections 10 streets, 10 alleys, and 20 sidewalks over a mile. That sidewalk doesn't need to be split in to 40 separate ways.

Great that you're trying to improve routing, thanks! Routers are able to handle intersections even when ways are not split at that intersection/node. It's not as if a router will continue on Way A beyond a turn onto Way B that it would make otherwise just because Way A doesn't terminate at intersection/node with Way B. So splitting is unnecessary and it adds unnecessary way ids to OSM. PS -- If you're looking for projects related to bike transportation, getting OSM to more accurately reflect the City of Denver's current official map would be a great project.

Hi there -- Thanks for all your contributions to the map. Generally speaking, splitting ways for routing is not an encouraged mapping practice: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_router

Thanks, Oscar. Much appreciated.

Please make sure when editing to review on-the-ground reality. In this case at Garfield and Bayaud, there is a diverter that allows bicycle access but denies vehicular through traffic.

Got it, thanks for the heads up.

Sure! It's a pleasure.

Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it.

Thanks for the heads up.

Noted, thanks.

Sorry for the confusion. Can you provide a little more detail on what the issues were? It was a pretty basic edit to add sidewalks to San Pablo.

Good catch and thank you. I added missing marked crossing ways and didn't realize that the controlled signals were removed in the process.

Thanks for the quick response. Where in the wiki is that standard established?

Can you explain why you deleted way/1427332359, which was a separate geometry protected bike lane?

Thanks for your caretaking of the map and thoughtful guidance to our volunteers who are contributing their time and local knowledge to try to improve map data in their communities. We’re reviewing the items you suggested and appreciate the feedback. If you feel like the duck pond trail segment needs to be reverted, feel free to do so. Seems like you’re into biking, so if you or other folks you know are interested in helping with some of the biggest challenges with the map, here are a few we think need work: https://bikestreets.com/blog/help-us-make-openstreetmap-better-for-biking

Howdy -- Yes, we are building a bike map, hence the need for ways that are properly split at various junctions. There was a modeling artifact on the trail where rather than making a clear movement across the street, which is what people do in that spot, the modeling artifact suggested that you would turn left on Duck Pond Drive, then turn right on the trail. So I removed the modeling artifact to allow for the proper real-world movement.

This was an error. Good catch. I've resolved it now.

Sure, go for it. The parking protected bike lanes are separate geometries there.