Errore mio - volevo solo cambiare da cycleway a footway, ma ho tolto tutto. Questa stretta striscia di asfalto è presente sul lato est di Via San Pio X fra le due rotonde, é utilizzabile in bici, ma non è una cycleway. Farò il revert in questo senso. Sul lato opposto la mappa mostra una ciclopedonale. E' piu larga, ma anche questa non è segnalata come CICLO-pedonale sul terreno. dovrebbe diventare una footway con bicycle=permissive, se sei d'accordo.

Per la corsia riservata all'accesso al Pronto Soccorso (way/1281451569), forse sarebbe meglio utilizzare vehicle=emergency al posto di access=permit. Inoltre sarebbe anche da considerare l'uso utilizzare lane tagging (vedi osm.wiki/Lane_tagging_comparison)

typo "brifge" corrected. Thanks for spotting this

way/176017403 is in Poland ???

way/1272431845: I added bicycle=permissive as it is wide enough for bicyles, and is a safer option for cyclists. It's also in continuation from a signed segregetated foot-cycle-way to the West

way/1382016928: by convention, the markings seem to be usually mapped only on the crossing node, but not on the crossing way.

1459105433 like 176017403 (I suppose you mean way/1459105433):
This looks like a footpath, so it as a fottpath. If your prefer path, no problem. Important that the information like surface, smothness, width is present. In this specific cse the verrtical signin is most likely wrong: coming from the South, there is a sign that motor vehicles to destination. I presume this applies only to the southern, paved part of the way. The northern part is only compaced, and certanly not intened for for motorbikes.

1272431847 and 1272431846:
when adding/updating additional tags like oneway, segregated, and width I used JOSM and it's presets replaced "cycleway" with "path". In this case path and cycleway are equivalent. BTW this is not the case for not-segregated foot-cycle-ways in ITALY, which are legally "marciapiedi" on which bicycles are tolerated, but pedestrians have priority, and their use is not compulsary for cyclists (if they run parallel to roadways). therefore I woul say it's better not to use the tag highway=cycleway, but highway=path or even highway=footway.

Thanks anyway for checking.

Looks the same to me. I do not remember why I inserted the change.
There seem to be several situations of that kind in Vicenza, i.e. large sidewalks/footways that are used by cyclists, but are not signposted as such. Maybe the best way to reflect the reality on the ground would be highway=footway combined with bicycle=permissive? If you are a local mapper, please feel free to decide. I am an only an occasional visitor.

Hi Hanna. Fedback on way/881221713.
I would not tag it with bicycle=yes. Unless I have overlooked something, on the ground there is no sign indicating bicycle use. If it is used habitually by cyclists despite this, you could tag it with bicycle=permissive.

Hi Fabry, I noticed that in this 15 years old changeset you assigned the tag "sac_scale=mountain_hiking" to a flat 3m wide bridge that is used by vehicles (way/72609237) . This is plainly wrong (see sac_scale=*) and most likely due to confusion on how SAC scale works in comparison with the CAI scale. sac_scale assigns a grade to each individual way (in OSM) based on difficulty of each specific piece of the hiking route, whereas the CAI scale is assigned to the route as a whole. In fact the route relation this case has a cai_scale E. This is a typical error of early OSM tagging. I am mentioning it to you, as you maybe one of the oldest OSM contributors around here, and you are still active. I don't know what the best way of action is, to be honest.

Tanto meglio. Grazie !

Se fai import, in particolare di queste dimensioni, dovresti seguire le procedure (non ho controllato se era annunciato sulla wiki), ma non lasciare ad altri le correzioni dopo.
Quelli che ho visto per caso son su qua: changeset/67699648#map=19/45.601110/11.623341

Potresti controllare questi import, perché vedo sovrapposizioni con edifici inseriti precedentemente.
Grazie

What is the source of this data?
Tagging is not correct: should be highway=proposed + proposed=trunk/motorway/...

Ciao,
to me this seems to be a an incorrect interpretation. A highway=pedestrian is a road for pedestrians who can use the entire road space; vehicles, including bicycles, are not permitted. In an ZTL, roads do still generally have side walks for pedestrians and the carriage way is for vehicles, even though the vehicle traffic in a ZTL is limited to certain classes of vehicles. The details vary from city to city. I do not know the rules in Vicenza, there will be delibera by the Comune. Typically the following vehicles will be allowed: public transport, bicycles, emergency services, residents, electric vehicles, delivery vehicles (at certain hours), motor cycles, tourists that stay in hotels. The procedure for permits vary as well. In addition the ZTL restriction s are different for different times of the day or even different days of the week. An Area Pedonale is a completely different concept compared with a ZTL, and also "orthogonal" to it, in the sense that an Area Pedonale can exist inside an ZTL , but also outside. The tagging for any given ZTL is complex, and, as a consequence, many of them are mapped incorrectly in OSM. In addition a ZTL can include also areas where only cars of residents in the specific streets are permitted. Another complication can be, as is the case in Padova, that the ZTL is subdivided in zones, and permits may only be valid for a specific zone inside the ZTL.
I have no correct tagging proposal myself for Vicenza, I only noted that your tagging is not correct. If the ZTL in Vicenza is similar to the one in Padova, then you could start with the Aree Pedonali (highway=pedestrian and bicycle=yes/no according to local signs, keeping in mind that an Area Pedonale sign without an explicit sign for the exclusion of bicycles needs bicycle=yes, otherwise bicycle=no. The ZTL could be modelled with conditional access to reflect the time-dependent access rules (If I remember well, the ZTL in Vicenza has fixed time window in the morning for deliveries.) The basic tag will most likely be motor_vehicles=private (this would include motor cycles). This assumes that every moto vehicle entering needs to have a personalised permit before entering. (attention: permit=yes is not correct, because that assumes that anyone can easily get it on request).
Maybe we should launch a discussion in the Italy forum on this subject?

Let me add: a simple revert will not fix the problem. The previous tagging was not correct either. Unfortunately every ZTL in Italy has different rules.

Ciao,
I think it is not correct to tag the ZTL roads in Vicenza as pedestrian (which means no vehicles at all, in particolar no residents, no electric cars, no bicycles.
See https://servizi2.comune.vicenza.it/utilita/restrictedtrafficzone.php

This is the original approved version of the highway=path approach:
osm.wiki/Proposal:Path

Bonjour. You changed several mixed-ise foot-cycle paths in Abano to highway=cycleway. This type of mixed-use shared ways (no lane separation for bicycle and pedesrians) is legly a "marciapiede" where bicycles are allowed, but pedestrians have the priority. For that reason many mappers prefer to use the neutral "path" mapping. There is another particularity about these ways: they legally are not cycle ways. If they run parallel to a road, cyclists are not obliged to use them. It's different for segregated foot-cycle paths: these are "piste ciclabili accanto a marciapiede" and and their cycling lane is considered as "pista ciclabile" i.e. cycleway. Their use is mandatory for cyclists, when they run alongside a road.

Hi,
you changed some foot-only crossings along the Civlocia Treviso Ostiglia from bicycle=dismount to bicycle=designated. This is not correct. Theyse are really foot-only crossings. Have a look at the corresponding Mapillary imagery, to check.
(I am a cyclist and I am not happy of thes foot-only crossings there, but that is what they are on the ground)

Thanks. Already corrected. Spotted it myself.

Ciao. Grazie del tuo commento. E' pertinente, ma non sono d'accordo.

Si tratta di una ciclovia ufficiale della Provincia di Padova (vedi https://www.cicloculturando.it/itinerario/) con segnaletica più o meno completa. Il tratto in questione
Il pezzo in questione è di qualità variegata, ma comunque percorribile con una bici normale.
Puoi guardarlo su Mapillary.com.

Per quanto riguarda il tagging in OSM, il tag bicycle=yes sarebbe ridondante perché implicito per highway=track e highway=path (vedi osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Italy)
Inoltre il tag bicycle=yes riguarda solo l'aspetto legale, ma non dice niente sulla qualità della strada. Similarmente il tag bicycle=designated dice solo che c'è segnaletica, che indica che la strada è riservata (più o meno) alle biciclette, tipicamente con la segnaletica rotonda blu (in Italia).
So che ci sono tanti mappatori OSM, affezionati di MTB, che aggiungono bicycle=yes per rendere visibili dei percorsi idonei alle MTB sul rendering OpenCycleMap.

Per quanto riguarda il comportamento dei router, loro tipicamente assegnano una addizionale preferenza alle way che fanno parte di una ciclovia. Questa preferenza può variare anche in funzione del livello della ciclovia, con la preferenza più alta per l'appartenenza a una ciclovia internazionale e una molto più bassa a una ciclovia locale.

Un router non dovrebbe tener conto del tag bicycle=yes. Diversamente dovrebbe tener conto di bicycle=designated perché indica che la way è "riservata" alle bici.

Ignora il messaggio precedente. E' incompleto

Un router non dovrebbe tener conto del tag bicycle=yes. Diversamente dovrebbe tener conto di bicycle=designated perché indica che la way è "riservata" alle bici e quindi indica l'assenza di veicoli motorizzati (più o meno)