Additional changeset comment: Removed several habitat-related POIs for animal habitats that no longer exist.

Correct changeset comment: Added land use areas

Hello - I've reverted this changeset (revert changeset #162830375). These are not primarily sidewalks alongside roadways, but rather foot paths linking pedestrian areas, buildings, and parking lots to one another. Not all footways are sidewalks. In this case, the original foot path tags are generally more accurate.

This follows prior guidance received from the OSM Slack #sidewalks community: https://app.slack.com/client/T029HV94T/C6E4S4CQG

Reverted in changeset #152916715. If driveways are private, add an access=private tag rather than deleting them.

Reverted in changeset #152916680. If driveways are private, add an access=private tag rather than deleting them.

Reverted in changeset #152916529. If driveways are private, add an access=private tag rather than deleting them.

Well, except that it's not a separate road. It's one road, or one paving, as you put it.

But if what you say is true, then how would a contraflow bus lane, as defined by OSM, be different from what exists on Oak? The definition of busway=opposite_lane states: "The route is a lane, but buses may go in the direction opposite to other traffic (the bus lane is a contraflow bus lane)." To me, that sounds exactly like what exists on Oak.
If not, what makes NB Oak different?

As for transit routing, couldn't that can be easily handled by refining the tags on the existing features? Bus routes, for instance, allow for forward/backward tags that specify the direction of travel for buses along the route.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by signal routing. Maybe this would be a situation where placing separate traffic signal nodes on each incoming way would be more appropriate than a single signal at the junction? That way each signal could be tagged more specifically to indicate its direction and if it's bus-only.

Yes, that's how the FTA defines busway, but here I'm referring to OSM and the iD editor's definition of the term. The busway preset in iD is for bus-only roads, not bus-only lanes. Bus lanes have different tags and are tagged as part of the road path.

highway=busway

busway=*

Has the bus lane been upgraded to a busway? The contraflow bus lane on Oak between 9th and 10th already has a tag on the Oak Street road path. If it's still just a bus lane, then adding a separate path for a busway is not correct. Bus lanes and busways are not the same.

The addresses may have changed, but it seems unlikely that the street name has changed from Horton Street to Beverly Avenue, given that another Beverly Avenue already exists two blocks to the east and the county website still shows Horton as the official name for parcels along this street.

Many of the paths that you have retagged in this set are not sidewalks, as defined by OSM. In OSM, it is customary to distinguish between footways/paths and sidewalks based on their relationship to roads. Sidewalks, as the name implies, run alongside roadways, so the footway=sidewalk tag is not really appropriate for footways that cut through college campuses, parks, etc.

For further guidance:

footway=*
osm.wiki/Sidewalks

Also, you can use the OpenStreet Browser (https://openstreetbrowser.org/) to confirm that other mappers (not just me) follow this practice. You can view the OSM footway data by selecting Transportation > Walking > Footways. In well-mapped cities, like San Francisco, London, Berlin, and Toronto, there's a fairly consistent tagging distinction between sidewalks alongside roads and footways elsewhere.

Where does the cited document state this? It confirms that there are no existing facilities for biking, but the the physical facilities and access/designation are two separate matters. You're assuming that because a certain type of biking facility does not exist that this changes access rights/designations. It doesn't.

It would be like saying that because a street lacks parking stripes that I should park in someone's private driveway or yard. The absence of the parking stripes does not mean I should park my car elsewhere. If it's legal to park on the street, that's where I should park regardless of there being parking stripes or not.

Under Missouri law, streets and roads are by default designated for bike use, regardless of there being any biking facility, unless otherwise indicated. Sidewalks are designated for pedestrians (and bikes, under specific operating conditions), unless otherwise indicated.

This is tagging for the renderer. Please review Items 5 and 5.1 in the OSM guidelines for good mapping practice: osm.wiki/Good_practice

No worries, all is well. The abbreviation is very widely used, including on the city's website, so the unabbreviated form can definitely seem odd. In the end, though, it's just an abbreviation, so the policy on abbreviations kicks in.

I know you've done a lot of great work on Chicago, and STL would benefit from similar work if you are so inclined. It doesn't have very many regular mappers. I jump in and work on the city from time to time, but there's still a lot to be done.

Saint Louis is the unabbreviated form of St. Louis, not a misspelling. There are many local institutions and businesses that utilize Saint Louis without it being considered a misspelling. These include the Saint Louis Public Schools, Saint Louis Zoo, Saint Louis Science Center, Saint Louis Art Museum, Fair Saint Louis, Saint Louis University, among others. At least three neighborhood associations use Saint Louis: Saint Louis Hills, Old North Saint Louis, and Soulard Saint Louis. The USPS uses Saint Louis as well. I can share more examples if you need them.

For additional evidence to support these changes, see the comments on changeset #139226488

That's your assumption, but all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. It's also incorrect to say that there is no bike facility along the road. There are bike route signs along the road.

The Bike KC Master Plan (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U9Bdz-xaNzXBN-MDH0QTlIR624cVlF33/view?pli=1) identifies these signs as "share the road signs" for "shared streets" (pg. 45). The plan acknowledges that shared lane markings are often absent on such routes (pg. 67). Maps in the master plan show Meyer as an "existing signed bike route/shared road route" (pg. 46), to be eventually upgraded to "major separation" bike path route (pg. 56).

Other sources confirm the MARC map. Jackson County Parks & Rec calls it a "on-street bike trail" on their map: https://www.makeyourdayhere.com/files/assets/parksrec/parks/documents/sw-county-trails.pdf

KC Parks & Rec show a picture of the roadway, not the sidewalks, on its "Meyer Boulevard Bikeway" page, and refers to the bikeway as a street trail: https://kcparks.org/places/meyer-boulevard-bikeway/

Planning documents for the proposed Meyer Boulevard road diet show the possible addition of bike lanes and shared bike-ped paths in the future. Such changes would be unnecessary if a shared bike-ped path already existed along the corridor (https://www.kcmo.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3493/637050051816400000).

All the official evidence confirms that this is a on-street bike route, as does the on-the-ground signage.

Except that the route is designated as an on-road bike route (viewable on the MARC map by clicking on the route).

Yes, they are extra wide sidewalks, but width does not confirm anything about access rights. Just because shared paths are often wide does not mean that all wide paths are designated for shared access. For that, we need some signage or official documentation.

In this case, the simpler explanation for the wide sidewalks is that they are boulevard sidewalks. Many of the city's boulevards have extra-wide sidewalks (Armour, Karnes, Cleaver, Benton, Linwood).

Hi! What exactly did you see to indicate that these are shared use paths? I see signage indicating that the street is a bike route, but haven't seen any signage indicating the sidewalks are shared use paths.