You removed a crossing that was richly tagged and replaced it with a minimally tagged crossing, ways 1258468691 and 1295951206. This removed tacticle paving information. Please also be sure that whenever you are replacing cycleway tags with separate ways, you maintain or update the information on what sort of way is being mapped. As increasingly the cycleway key is being used in the Boston area to map things that are not grade separated, dedicated cycleways, but instead on street lanes, the bike network and routing information for the region is degraded. Bike routing tools increasingly cannot note a difference between paint and hardscape separation, and increasingly cannot include street names in routing
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153136217

I had removed the "cycleway" on Park and Tremont Streets, as to align with the wiki, to connect details of the on street bike lane to the buffer tags. I had flagged this as something to clean up as it was complicating bicycle routing.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152870804

Additionally, you've removed the dismount tag on the Poplar St community path exit, which is signed as dismount
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152821544

You've removed kerb and tactile paving tags from crossings, which is used for accessibility mapping
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152821544

Hello, it appears you're deleting and recreating crossings while removing tag details, as well as degrading the specificity contained in cycleway tags. Please consider reverting this to restore that data
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152785047

Looks like you accidentally dragged a node off of the pedestrian area near the Argenziano

Isn't that end of Lincoln St 1 way? After Portsmouth Street? Or did that change recently?

My point is that mapping this as a separated cycleway while deleting the tags from the road: 1. removes information (notably, that this is buffered, and not grade or hardscape separated) and 2. is strange for routing

Could you point me to where you see those guidelines on mapping as separate cycleways? Based on osm.wiki/Bicycle and the cycleway disambiguation page, I would still only see hardscape or grade separation as suggesting separate mapping

Hello, there are on road bike lanes here, in addition to the sidewalk, so I think it would be correct to keep the cycleway tags on north beacon street? I don't believe there's any hardscape protection here? I don't see it on the Watertown future bike map
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152611236

Hello, please group your changes geographically to limit the size of changeset bounding boxes, as per osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Hello, please try to keep changesets locally constrained. This helps anyone looking at changeset history or reviewing changes. Since this changeset edits a building in Florida and a way intersection in Belgium, the bounding box of the changeset covers the whole North Atlantic, so anyone looking at history anywhere within that area will see your changeset in the history, even if the nodes you changed aren't in the area they are looking at

Looking at the plans, is this not an on-street, buffered/parking protected lane, and not a cycle track? I also thought it was only just started, and not expected to complete for 3 weeks
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152591971

You did. See ways 1291588530, 1291588531, 426623435, and other parts of Westland Ave

Please stop deleting cycleway tags that more accurately describe the conditions than the ways you are replacing those tags with. Sharrows, bike lanes, and buffered bike lanes are fundamentally different from `highway=cycleway`, and removing the detail that those tags provide degrades the usefulness of OSM for analyzing the bicycle network
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152563836

I have corrected those removed pedestrian tags in changeset/152522340

Did you just revert your fixes to the ways in Davis? It looks like this has retagged them incorrectly as cycleways

The plaza in Davis is not a cycleway. The sign at Grove street says that the bikeway continues on the other side of the square, the crossing at College has signs to dismount, the curb cut has the central business district "no bikes" marking. It is similar at Buena Vista
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152520666

This area I'd consider part of Davis, but the whole square is Davis not just this area. I don't think any other mapper had named or removed a name from this? To my knowledge this isn't named at all, at least not conspicuously. If you were to ask what single part of the square might be considered the Davis pedestrian area, I think most would answer the main plaza
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152466357

This isn't a park? Aren't parks primarily natural surface? Or, at the very least, some part natural surface? This is a paved pedestrian area with some bike parking, a few tree pits, and a bike repair stand.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152454405

But washington has an on street bike lane. It's not a cycle way. Generally these have been less tagged than the original tags on the road described, they're not describing the on street nature of buffered lanes, and the tagging standard for cycle way is an off street path