Oh, I see what you're talking about now. I typically browse the map in "Cycle Map" view but "CyclOSM" view shows all the crossings and sidewalks disappear due to the excessive bicycles=no tags in the area. When editing it seemed like all those ways were correctly identified but those sneaky bicycles=no tags mess up routing. After auditing the history of a few of those ways with extra bicycles=no tags, they all seem to come from they were first made. Was bicycle=no, a default tags for pedestrian crossings and sidewalks years ago? When I make those lines today I don't get those extra bicycle=no tag. I submitted another edit to delete the bicycles=no tags and try to get a natural cycle route to form with routing algrithims.

Haha, good call out! I found way/1388278462 and modified to make it more accurate. Half of that segment is used by bikes that use the pedestrian signal crossing and the other half leads to steps, not designated for bikes. Let me know if my edits capture what your talking about. I'm not 100% certain of which "horrible left turn" you're referring too because a couple of these turns can seem intimidating around here.

Haha, I noticed you flip the Two Rivers Trail to back to regional. I flipped it to local because it overlaps the regional D&L. Now that you added the local Forks Township cycle routes I agree it makes more sense to differentiate between the two. Regional vs local routes is an interesting "gray area" distinction.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and trail theory BPTT! I agree with most of your thought process. I also agree dead-end paths and playground access paths that are not primary cycle routes should be considered for foot path tagging too. For paths that connect or "dead-end" with a parking lot, I challenge your default foot path designation. Sometimes exiting a cycle route thru a parking lot is ideal. For connecting parking lots to trails for foot traffic I started to utilize the "access aisle" footway tag to be more specific and accurate than foot paths connecting directly to parking lots. Again I agree with most of your mapping theory but wanted to make this call out because I've noticed missed opportunities for cycle direction algorithms.

Thanks for adding the local cycle route relation for the Forks Township Trail! Excellent step towards more accuracy/detail. I'm confused why you stripped the designated cycle allowed designations throughout the system? The trail map you sourced calls the Forks Township Trails a "Dedicated Bike Path" and there's multiple signs around the trail system that call out no vehicles on the "bike path". Most of these paths at least had a confirmed yes for allowed cycle access. If you're unaware, some map styles display confirmed "yes" allowed bike access differenttly then unconfirmed/default "yes" allowed access. Personally I think all these general paths should be mapped as cycle & foot paths for the FTT system. In some map styles these paths look no different than sidewalks, but at least they're now highlighted by the cycle route relation you made. What are your thoughts on using paths vs cycle & foot paths?

Hey pkoby, I think this cycle route should be deleted. Unfortunately the GRT specifically says that biking is one of the "Prohibited Activities" listed on the map. The hiking route is already specified on OpenStreetMap. It's possible to mountain bike in there when it's dry but technically prohibited.

Montgomery County has this section of the SRT in their map too. Looks like it was updated this year and the scale is zoomed in for better route clarity: https://www.montgomerycountypa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3462/Schuylkill-River-Trail-Brochure-June-2024?bidId=

There are two routes! The gravel trail gets busy with pedestrians on the weekend. Interesting that the road section is not on the interactive map but it's officially marked on the PDF map: https://schuylkillriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018_05_18_SRT_Map.pdf

There's also official SRT signs with arrows at each turn if you want to check yourself using street level imagery.