I have no idea if it is advisable, but it looks fine to me in this way ;-)
Michael

OK, I added the choker as a node. I let it up to you to delete the area you draw.
Michael

Hello again,
I checked and the relation seems intact to me. However, the sandy peninsula you added will remain blue, because the lake area defined by the relation still includes it.
Should I correct that? (editing that in iD seems risky to me!)
Michael

Hello,
Your edit won't survive a long time, because it does not comply with the rules stated in the wiki of the traffic_calming=choker tag. Presently, it is not supported on areas, only on nodes or segments. As for myself, I think nodes are the better choice, as editors and some maps (I guess?) will render the choker. The node must be included in the road segment in order to be taken into account by routing algorithms.
Cheers, Michael

JOSM is surely the better choice if you edit such complex objects as the lake. IN JOSM, you will find a lot of interesting editing tools, like viewing object histories, etc.
Cheers.

Hello,
I think you broke the relation "Le Léman" in this changeset, which resulted in improper rendering of the lake. I tried several fixes before identifying a small segment of lake border that was duplicated and I deleted that. Let's wait a few hours and see if the lake rendering gets correct again.

Bonjour,
Ce tronçon est-il vraiment passé en sens unique?
Je sais que, par le passé, le double-sens allait jusqu'à la voie d'accès au Musée de l'Hermitage.
Cordialement,
Michael

Bonjour,
Ce groupe de modifications comporte de nombreux problèmes:
1) Les voies piétonnes modifiées n'ont en grande majorité pas de dérogation pour être utilisées à vélo. Il est donc inadéquat d'ajouter le tag bicycle=yes.
2) Sur des voies piétonnes (footway ou pedestrian), il est totalement superflu d'ajouter le tag foot=yes puisque c'est une valeur implicite. Merci de limiter les ajouts aux seuls tags qui apportent une plus-value informative.
3) Aucune source n'est mentionnée pour expliquer sur quelle base les ajouts de tags se sont fondés: concrètement, s'agit-il de connaissances personnelles du terrain ou d'autres sources?
Enfin, pour information, les données OSM sont utilisées par de nombreux systèmes de cartographie et de navigation dédiés pour les cyclistes. En introduisant des valeurs inadéquates, la qualité de ces systèmes s'en trouvera dégradée. Pour plus d'infos: osm.wiki/FR:Bicycle
Cordialement, Michael

Hello again,
Having been there yesterday, I noticed that the (expected) living street connection between Avenue de Champel and Rue Michel-Servet is now almost finished and I entered it in OSM.
I hope that this first experience did not deter you to contribute to OSM.
My hint: for a beginning contributor, it is wiser to only add informations and to leave deletions to more experienced persons ;-)
Best wishes, Michael

Hello again,
I understand your point and won't contradict you that the present tag definitions in the wiki are on your side. This being said: cycleway tags should reflect the actual value of usage for cyclists and I strongly believe that the new bike lanes are as valuables as cycle tracks... Don't you think so?
So, if you agree with me on that, the debate you are raising rather points out the need to adapt the wiki in all languages to take account of the recent move by multiple cities to create temporary cycling infrastructures in reaction to the Covid crisis.
For your information: I take care of bicycle related tags in Geneva since several years and my current efforts are directed at optimizing bicycle navigation systems like Geovelo (as well as bicycle maps like CyclOSM).
I will get in touch with specialized mappers in other countries in order to adapt the wikis. So, please, do not change cycleway tags on your own meanwhile, because you would degrade the quality of the cycling tools mentioned above. If you see any local tagging problem, do not hesitate to get in touch with me and I will take care of corrections.
Thanks, Michael
PS. I have visited all the new cycling facilities with a panoramic camera on my helmet, but went there during low trafic conditions. If your own commute experience differs from my perception, I would be glad to read your point of view (then by direct mail instead of this changeset discussion, I guess)

Well, it depends which section you are talking about. As a matter of fact, the new cycle lanes/tracks in most places have taken over the full width of a car lane, are separated by a continuous yellow line and on several places authorities have placed temporary cycleway signs (blue bicycle signs). For all those reasons, cycleway=track seems more appropriate to me. Do you see road sections where my coding choices seem inappropriate?

Bonjour,
Pour info, j'ai corrigé ces deux mises en sens unique car elles sont erronées. Merci de ne plus tenir compte à l'avenir des suggestions d'improveosm.org à moins que vous ayez vraiment visité les lieux ;-) De toute évidence, les suggestions de ce système ne sont pas fiables et elles ont la fâcheuse tendance à casser le routage d'itinéraires cyclistes.
Bien cordialement,
Michael

Bonjour,
Pour info, j'ai procédé à plusieurs correctifs sur ce changeset. Quelques erreurs à éviter:
1) Le tag access=residents n'existe pas. Lorsqu'il y a une restriction "sauf riverains", il convient d'utiliser le tag access=destination.
2) Attention: le tag * = designated ne se rapporte pas du tout à des indications spécifiques qu'on trouve parfois sur des plaquettes associées à des panneaux de signalisation! Il signifie en réalité "a été conçu pour (...)" et permet par exemple d'indiquer qu'une piste cyclable sert aussi de trottoir (highway=cycleway & foot=designated) ou inversement (highway=footway & bicycle=designated). Merci de lire le wiki à ce propos ;-)
3) A mon avis, le tag "oneway=yes" n'est pas utile pour la situation sur cette route (bien qu'il y ait le panneau "sens interdit aux non-riverains"). En effet, le tag "access=destination" va limiter le routage d'itinéraires et le rendu de carte mettra lui aussi en évidence le statut particulier du tronçon de route.
4) Attention au sens de la voie lors de l'ajout de "oneway=yes". Le fléchage dans l'éditeur indique le sens de circulation.
Mes différents correctifs peuvent être analysés avec la fonction "Affichage > Historique" disponible dans JOSM et qui est très utile pour apprendre la cartographie dans OSM ;-)
Je reste volontiers à disposition pour échanger en cas de doutes (je m'occupe tout particulièrement de maintenir les données pour optimiser le routage d'itinéraires cyclistes).
Cordialement,
Michael

Hello, Thanks for the explanation. That seems indeed a legitimate source.
I would suggest to indicate "Open Data Ville de Morges" as source, as the ASIT-VD is only an intermediary for the data distribution.

Hello (again), Can you please explain more precisely what plan you are using as source and why you believe that is a legitimate source.
Copying other maps into OSM is not allowed, except when authorities have adopted Open Data policies. More info: osm.wiki/Copyright

Hello, you are indicating that your map improvements are based on maps of the swiss federal office of Topography. This is not a legitimate source, because it is not allowed to copy informations from their maps into OSM. Please stop copying other maps! (and read again the fundamental terms that you agreed upon when registering. See also: osm.wiki/Copyright

An additional hint: I am taking care of bicycle related data in order to optimize bicycle route calculation. OSM is used as the source data for most cycling related applications and so it is perfect to have up-to-date information. If you detect anything that is wrong regarding foot or cycleways, do not hesitate to send me a mail and I will take care of the mapping. It is quite tricky to map in a way that routing algorithms find the best routes...
Good night, Michael

Those two streets are currently correctly tagged as pedestrian streets with passage allowed for bicycles. So please do not correct anything there!
Please tag the additional passage as a footway and connect it to the sidewalk on Michel-Servet that now is left unconnected (for pedestrian routers, this breaks the routing...).

OK, thanks for the precisions. But did you know that there are tags that would have allowed to mark the area as "under construction" (see: construction=*)? And there is also the possibility to use the tag "access=no" to indicate that currently no passage is possible... In such cases, it is wiser to keep the old information and to add these tags instead of simply deleting the road. In some time, there will at least be a passage for pedestrians in front of the building. Are you going to take care of updating the map again when the construction is finished?
Kind regards, Michael

Sorry to insist, but I also know quite well Geneva and I am totally aware that the area has been remodeled (and I assume that the works are still not totally finished, isn't it?).
So, if you live there, what is the current status of the road works?
From official data from canton Geneva, there is (or soon will be) a living_street connection between the Plateau de Champel and the rue Michel-Servet. The plans are available her:
https://www.etat.ge.ch/geoportail/pro/?mapresources=MOBILITE_ESPACE_ROUTIER%2CMOBILITE_SIGNAUX_LUMINEUX%2CMOBILITE