Yes, I can confirm this (also visible on King County 2025 orthoimagery, available in the backgrounds sidebar on the right of the editor). Good catch, I didn't see that this hadn't been updated in OpenStreetMap yet. I'm going through and adding a bit more detail.

Thanks for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! What's specifically is the source for this information? Do you have local knowledge to indicate that these railroads are all operated by this company? Thanks!

User currently has a 0-hour block osm.org/user_blocks/21470 asking them to respond to changeset comments, so they should get back to you on this before they continue editing.

Yeah, see also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-implied-access-restrictions-for-hiking-route-member-ways/149178/20 for my attempt to break down where the disagreement is happening

I removed those 3 tags in lieu of a response. Happy mapping!

> It probably was never documented because my way is the correct way, and there are people that agree with me.

Knowing the OSM community, that is highly unlikely 😅

>I have a question for pwbriggs, how familiar are you with the Long Path?

Per my messages above:
>I'm not familiar with The Long Path

> being unfamiliar with Long Path,

That's why my opinions above are so conditional ("IF they maintain the segment themselves", etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Long Path is more of a route than a trail of its own in some places, as @jmapb put it near the start of the discussion:

>It's a hodgepodge route that follows hundreds of different roads/footways/paths, and inherits their access restrictions.

So no, I do not know Long Path but I am trying to provide input on OSM tagging here.

Whoops, my message was in response to Kevin's message above (which I only just now see is Kevin's and not matthewfecica's, so apologies if I conflated your two arguments in my response)

What about the official general information about Long Path (no bikes) implies that this particular segment is no-bike? That source is presumably talking about Long Path as a route, and stating that this route is not for bicycles because not all segments allow bikes. I'm not an expert in access tagging, bit that sounds like information that would go on the relation itself.

That is not to say that the tags you added are not appropriate here, just that a general statement about the route doesn't seem to me to imply anything about this particular segment which is only a small part of Long Path as a whole. What would warrant access tags on this segment, IMO, is if the operator of this segment has a rule prohibiting (or allowing) bikes. You quoted law from the jurisdiction that presumably maintains this segment, which is a far more plausible source for access information. Unfortunately my follow-up question regarding the passage you quoted would be, is the path actually reserved for pedestrians as far as the Village is concerned? I think that NYSDOT's designation for the route as a whole has little bearing on what's allowed or disallowed by this town if they maintain the segment themselves.

Maybe if the trail segment itself is somehow owned by NYSDOT then their info about the trail has specific bearing over this NYSDOT-owned and/or -maintained trail, in which case it does sound accurate that bikes are prohibited here. But, being unfamiliar with Long Path, I suspect that legally this is techically just the Village's path that happens to be designated as part of NYSDOT's route.

As far as I understand, access=* tags are about legal access rules, so even if in practice bicyclists would almost always use the adjacent stair-free route, if it's not actually prohibited to ride a bicycle on the trail then it's not bicycle=no.

(your changeset is changeset/190909114 for reference)

No, I meant that the issue that that the two sidewalks (i.e. the 2 that are not the crossings) are connected by a barrier=kerb, which isn't accurate in real life because (as far as I can tell) you can walk along one of the sidewalks, then turn (without crossing any street) and continue along the other sidewalk, without traversing any curbs. So the barrier=kerb should not be positioned on the node that joins those 2 segments of sidewalk.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, the intersection of Piermont/Bridge and Paradise, node/10164768453, is the one I lined above. I don't know if this is the only one in this changeset; I haven't looked through it yet.

Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I haven't looked into the access tags, only about the sidewalks: This changeset breaks the sidewalk network by inserting a barrier=kerb in the middle of a sidewalk that does not traverse a kerb. I am not approving or disapproving of the access tags because I'm not familiar with The Long Path, but that sidewalk should be fixed by moving the kerb node out on a stub from the corner.

(FYI, for transparency, there is a thread about these changes in the OSM US Slack workspace (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/) - cross-reference to https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCJ2P6KCH/p1792685980119119)

@jmapb and @matthewfecica, I understand that this disagreement is frustrating, but please try to refrain from personal attacks.

Re: routing, most routing programs don't take barrier=kerb nodes into account - since they can be traversed with ease in many modes of transport (walking, biking if lowered). However, having the barrier=kerb nodes in the topologically correct location in the pedestrian network is crucial for acessibility-focused routers: a wheelchair cannot traverse a raised kerb, and even some curb ramps may be difficult to traverse. @Lumikeiju works in this field and can speak to this issue much more fully than I can, but in my understanding yes, it is absolutely incorrect to have that barrier=kerb along a sidewalk path that doesn't have a curb on the ground.

Yes, and, level-of-detail theory aside, the kerb node node/10164768453 is connected to the sidewalk network in a way that is, if I'm understanding the aerial imagery correctly, objectively incorrect: as it is now mapped, you would need to traverse the barrier=kerb to take the corner on the sidewalk (without crossing any streets).

Thanks for the contributions!

Thanks for the info and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Due to receiving no response, I'm removing this camera for now. Let me know if you have more details to add. Thanks!

Due to receiving no response, I'm removing this camera for now. Let me know if you have more details to add. Thanks!

Due to receiving no response, I'm removing this camera for now. Let me know if you have more details to add. Thanks!

Is this a separate office than Hearing Speech & Deaf Center, or is this a particular individual who works at HS&DC? Thanks!