Converting the tag "living street" to paths. A general feature of living streets is that the legislation grants pedestrians higher or equal right of way over other road users. This condition is not met in this case, it is too narrow to be a road.

Thanks Lakedistrict! I saw that old wooden signpost on the East side of the river and there is definitely a path going down to the river bank where it ends. But nobody crosses the river here and the river bank on the other side is very overgrown.

Yes, I might do that, use the disused tag. Where the path should merge the road on the West side, there is a guard rail and a dense hedge, I cannot imagine that anybody has crawled through there for a long time. I also use STRAVA Heatmap overlay in OSM which provides a good indication of the popularity of a way - in this case zero.

I see your point. However, I am afraid that navigation apps will still show there is a way - which is a nuisance for 99% of users. Is OSM not based on what you see on the ground? There is definitely no footpath. Maybe it can be tagged as "historical"? What is your take on this?

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

Note that generally, OpenStreetMap encourages information to be verifiable on the ground. Proposed features that are not visible on the ground should therefore only be mapped in exceptional cases and after a discussion with the relevant OSM community, lest they might be deleted for lack of verifiability.

Please let me know whether the source is available and a discussion with OSM Indonesia has taken place. Otherwise, it would be better to delete this feature. Thanks

Planned roads are not objects that can be seen on the ground, so the source of the data must be specified each time. This can be the source=* tag on the object or in the changeset. Note that generally, OpenStreetMap encourages information to be verifiable on the ground. Proposed features that are not visible on the ground should therefore only be mapped in exceptional cases and after a discussion with the relevant OSM community, lest they might be deleted for lack of verifiability

Hi James
I am right now in Galicia contemplating to take my MTB on the Transcantábrica route. I did quite a bit of research, reading the different blogs etc. and will continue checking the conditions on the ground. I understand this route was put together by an individual years ago and is not signposted in any way. There are few people taking it (what I can see on Strava Heatmap) - so I wonder whether it should be marked as a route on OSM. The guideline states that routes should be signed (signposted?) - this one is not. As a user, I feel misled thinking this is an officially sanctioned route, maintained etc. What are your thoughts? Thanks for the great work you are doing, quite impressive!

way/1227523864 cannot be a "living street" because it is only one metre wide and therefore it has to be a path. Do you mind if I change your tag to path? I am actually living here in the neighborhood. Thanks for contributing to OSM.

To give you an example what I mean with clutter, just look at way/725759528 and all the "residential tags" in its vicinity.

Hi there!
Good to get some feedback and I do appreciate your comments and would like to start a conversation with you. I am like you a geography nerd and always loved maps, printed or digital. I've been living in Bali for the last 12 years and get around a lot - mostly on my bicycle. This is where my local "intel" comes into play. The typical layout of a Balinese village is houses along only one through road. There might be no other streets. However, behind these road-facing houses are many more buildings which often are part of large family compounds comprising of several households. In the majority of cases, the units away from the main road can only be accessed on a path by foot or motorbike, the preferred means of transport for millions of Balinese. Based on ground surveys, I then update the tags from residential road to driveway or path or when they are too many and too short, I delete them, otherwise the map becomes very cluttered. Certainly public roads and ways of a certain importance should be shown. This might be hard to define, however. In your example, I am not sure whether the way was wide enough for four-wheeled vehicles. I agree with you to use the tag driveway, but you did not address the issue of cluttering the map. If you zoom into the village of your example, do you really feel that the access to all those buildings away from the main road should be somehow mapped? Looking forward to your perspective.

Hi Husni

Way way/1089033345 is not a track, but a path. No four-wheeled vehicle can go there. I originally tagged it as a path and you changed it, I am curious, on what basis? Thx

Not sure why you added a cliff with the name "longsor"? Let me know what your intention was. Thx

way/1178763610 was not a track, but a path, only 1.2m wide. There are many ways in Bali far too narrow for 4-wheel-vehicles, but enough for motorbikes. If you import based on aerial map, better err on the side of caution, call it a path unless you know better, otherwise drivers can get into problems. Thank you and Merry Christmas!

way/586178172 is not a residential road, it is a concrete path only wide enough for motorbikes. Please do not re-tag my original classifications based on ground survey. I live with 100m of this place!