Hi Tom - great to see the work you've been doing.

bicycle=dismount indicates a legal restriction, i.e. whether dismounting is required. It's not for signifying surface quality. (After all, someone might want to ride along here on an MTB or a gravel bike.)

Best thing to do would be to reinstate the bicycle=yes tag and then use tags such as osm.wiki/Tag:surface=, tracktype= or smoothness= to indicate the surface quality.

Thanks! Some of it seems really very busy to be a safe cycle route but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hello - is the N2 really a signposted bicycle route?

If it's "not possible to drive" there's two things to break out:

* "drive" implies motor vehicles - so any access tag change should be "motor_vehicle=" rather than "access=".

* this is a very narrow (and badly maintained) road, so I can see that it could be difficult to drive, but access tags are strictly for stuff that is _illegal_ to drive. If "not possible" means that a car can't physically get through, it's better to use surface and width tags rather than access tags.

I've cycled this and it's definitely not a private gate. Removed access=private.

@ndm: wait, what? There are several fixmes in this changeset.

I mean, honestly, go ahead and revert this if it'll make your day. It'll make OSM on balance significantly worse, but you do you.

Right, so if it was a horse stile it would be barrier=horse_stile, not barrier=stile.

I'm at a loss to understand your point, I'm afraid. At the very worst interpretation then this is correcting something evidently wrong (a stile on a bridleway) to something less wrong. That's how OSM works, it iterates towards completeness. If you want to take the next step towards making it even better than that's great!

No, it isn't a mechanical edit at all. If you can do mechanical edits with Potlatch 2 then I'd be impressed to find out how ;)

Bridleways don't have stiles - bridleways are RoWs that are open to horses and bikes, which can't cope with stiles. If there's a stile on a bridleway then I've tried to move it to the side (which you do see sometimes, where there's a gate and a stile adjacent) or onto the adjacent way where it was clearly meant for a joining footpath but had been mistakenly placed on the junction node. If there's one I missed reinstating then let me know!

(Oxford was, of course, one of the first cities to be mapped in detail in OSM.)

Oxford High Street is a similar situation - an important road where cars are forbidden but buses are allowed. It has been consistently mapped as highway=tertiary since 2007. Sorry Kovoschiz, but your assertions really aren't in keeping with OSM precedence.

way/2988061

I'm not saying it's different; I'm just talking about UK mapping practice here because this changeset is in the UK. FWIW, there are plenty of shared-use ways in (off the top of my head) France and the US which are tagged with highway=cycleway.

There really are precious few cycle-only paths in the UK - I don't recall ever encountering one and I run a cycling website! - but if you do encounter one, you simply tag it with highway=cycleway, foot=no.

Thomas, I'm afraid you're not correct that when you say "highway=cycleway is for ways that are designed & designated only for bicycles".

That has never been the case in UK mapping practice. It wouldn't make sense if it was - there are very, very few paths in the UK that are bicycle-only.

highway=cycleway can be a more useful tag than highway=path as it suggests that the path has been constructed to standards suitable for cycle traffic. To take an extreme example, a mountain path in Scotland could be tagged highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, surface=gravel. All of those might be true yet it still wouldn't be practically navigable by bike (unless you're Danny Macaskill). highway=cycleway provides that reassurance.

That's probably a good workaround - I was wondering about whether to map it as a way, but mountain_pass is a smart idea. Thanks.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/94826785 where the changeset comment is: Let's try again...

Thanks - I'll revert and take another look. I wonder if we need an extra tagging solution of some sort - certainly passes/saddles are often described as being on a road (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman_Pass) and cyclists/hikers would consider themselves passing over it, even if the actual elevation point is a few metres away.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/94760686 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed Regent's Canal towpath tagging change

> This sounds like a selfish manoeuvre

That's as may be, but OSM maps facts, not your opinion on what's selfish.

Hi - I'm a bit bemused by way/750618349 being tagged as highway=secondary in this changeset - in what way is that appropriate?

Yeah, this pretty clearly needs to be reverted. FinB2000, you should be able to revert your own edit given that you've chosen to use JOSM, but if either of you need any assistance then please contact the OSM Foundation's Data Working Group.

Just commenting to say this is really excellent mapping!