Hi, I'm not insisting on using the "Cycle and Foot Path" preset. There's no problem with using highway=path. What's important is that we retain the tags `foot=designated` and `bicycle=designated` (and `horse=*`) since they explicitly state who is allowed.

Also, don't worry about the mismatched multipolygon tags. That edit was made by someone else 7 years ago. I've fixed that issue since then

Hi, using highway=path vs highway=cycleway doesn't really matter (to me) - what's important is that we retain the tags `foot=designated` and `bicycle=designated` (and `horse=*`) since they explicitly state who is allowed. This is better than relying on what highway=path implies

To make it easy, the iD editor has a preset called "Cycle and Foot Path" which has those explicit access tags.

also, the `type=route` and `route=bicycle` tags have been like that for years - not something you changed. sorry for the confusion. a correct example is way/24161380 (a segment of the route) and relation/10264466 (relation for the whole route, which is where the route tags go). i'll fix the Hauraki Rail Trail when I get a chance

Hi, why did you change the Hauraki Rail Trail from a "cycle and foot path" to "path"?

Also, there seems to be other issues here, the tags `type=route`, `route= bicycle`, etc. should be on the relation, not the tracks themselves

looks like someone reverted this edit...? I think you're right, the pedestrian area needs man_made=pier and the coastline shifted

Hi NBegg, I agree with ralley, nothing should be mapped twice. If a system you're using only looks at nodes, that's a major flaw with that system and you'd be better off trying to fix that issue, since 173,000 petrol stations are mapped as areas vs ~291,000 as nodes - https://taginfo.osm.org/tags/amenity=fuel

Hi, for Otago it was relatively simple to import all bus stops and manually merge the imported nodes with the relatively few existing nodes, before uploading the changeset (e.g. node/5762584678/history). This process was manual, (so no, there was no distance threshold), and it was generally obvious when to merge the data, because of how close the nodes were and since we have very high quality aerial imagery available.

For Auckland (where 1000s of bus stops are already mapped), and in the future for updating this data, we will need a more intelligent system that can conflate OSM data with council data...

Regarding importing route data - that's a lot more complicated, far beyond what the current code can do... (although anyone is welcome to see if https://github.com/CUTR-at-USF/gtfs-osm-sync still works and if it would be suitable)

Regarding importing timetable data - that kind of data isn't appropriate for OSM, although services like https://waka.app and https://transit.app make use of OSM as their basemap

hmm, this is strange. Otago Regional Council's data (https://orc.govt.nz/privacy-and-tscs#GTFS) has two stops next to each other (stop #60 and #61). According to their data, only route 15 uses stop #60 and all the other routes use stop #61... I suspect this is an error/typo in their data.

Feel free to delete one of the two stops/change their names etc. OSM works best when imported data is corrected/refined by local mappers

I think 'Christian Church' is more specific than 'Church Building', but I agree it's a bit confusing here.

As long as you use a red-coloured option for buildings it's fine. Another way to find out is to scroll to the bottom of the side bar and look at the 'Tags' section. If it has building=yes, then you know it's a type of building

this section of the road: way/951815810 is not oneway. And I think the other entrance is also not oneway but I can't remember

not sure about your locale, but if your language is set to "en-nz" you should see these options: https://git.io/JZKS8

Red means it's a type of building

Manukau station is already mapped, why have you added the train station 3 times?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105633117

same with all the other service roads here. and why did you delete the drop-off road?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106155990

You have added oneway=yes to way/951815810. On Maxar Premium Imagery, you can see the road markings that show that this is a two way road. Why did you change it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106155990

you have changed a building into a landuse feature. This is not correct. Buildings are used to map the outline of buildings. Landuse features cover the grounds. This is an example of a well-mapped church: osm.org/#map=19/-36.79870/174.77796 the grounds have landuse=religious and the building has building=yes + other descriptive tags
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106154241

You've been asked many times in other changesets not to tag walkways as bicycle=designated. This path is not signposted as a "Cycleway" or "Shared Path", and there are barriers to prevent cycling. This is definitely not a designated cycle path.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106148805

"Can I name it path?" - No, you cannot add fake or made-up names to OSM. If there no official name, nor a signposted name, the 'name' field should be blank.

You've said that "these paths are intended for use by both cyclists and pedestrians" - unless you have seen a sign that says 'Cycleway' or 'Shared path', then it is not designated for cycling.

In fact, street level imagery suggests the opposite: there are barriers to prevent cycling - see https://storage11.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2019/2/7/lth/1338069_6_e7c20_46.jpg which means it is definitely not a designated cycle path

you have been using the tag 'bicycle=designated'. Please carefully read the documentation for this tag: bicycle=designated

it should only be used if it the path is explicitly signposted as a "Shared Path" or "Cycleway" (these are the words used in New Zealand).

also, do not add fake or made-up names to OSM, "informal" and "Orford park paths" are not the official names of these walkways, nor are there any signposts that say that.

could you explain where you got the name "Walpole Avenue Reserve Path" from please? You must not make up names. We can only include signposted names or official names in OSM.

also, why did you delete the residential area around this park?

just because there are no signs, doesn't mean you can tag it as bicycle=designated. That tag should only be used if it is 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 as a cycle path. That means there are signs that say "Shared Path" or "Cycleway". In this case it should not be tagged as a cycleway

the 'name' tag is for just the name, not the description or purpose (Sports Park). Please read osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only