I've deleted some of the maxspeed tags as I've not received a response.

It's not just common practice for buildings with one address, it's also neater, and more structurally logical.

Thanks for the work on sidewalks! Looks good. I was wondering if you have looked at the Esri imagery? It seems quite a bit better than the Bing Imagery you've been using. You can find it in the background settings in iD.

This changeset creates a new relation (relation/11075507/history#map=11/49.1175/-122.6994&layers=Y), ostensibly for a bike route, but in reality containing many different routes, and uses the `name` tag "Local Surrey Bike routes". Can you provide any evidence that this is the official name, and explain why so many routes are placed in the same relation?

That makes sense, thanks for the answer Ken.

Hi DunbarLoop, I see this changeset adds two info boards (node/7527083855 and node/7527083854) one with the `name` tag in English and one in Japanese. Would it make sense to use a single node with the `name:jp` tag for the Japanese name?

The source of this changeset is just what the changeset source tag states, satellite imagery and Strava heatmap. It was not based on a field survey.

The addresses in this changeset include many buildings tagged with the same addresses. I've fixed a few of these with this edit: changeset/96215843

Thank you Aglis, it looks great!

Good call changing Zero Bridge to `highway=pedestrian`, it better corresponds with reality than `highway=footway`.

I often see sidewalks tagged `highway=cycleway`, by editors that seem to value mapping features of interest to cyclists. I think it is unhelpful to map bicycle infrastructure as better than reality, tagging the sidewalks of the Knight Street Bridge as cycleways is an example. The sidewalks seem to be the same age as the bridge, and give little consideration to cyclists, as they are not wide enough to pass a pedestrian. The signage directing cyclists to use the sidewalks does not change the fact that they are sidewalks. The exception are the sections of actual cycleways that lead northbound cyclists down to SE Marine Dr.

It is not useful to map them all the same, as much as I'd like there to be good cycleways crossing the Knight St Bridge.

I checked the addresses on two buildings, and found the addresses added by this changeset were wrong:

way/324172370
way/324172363

The buildings had two and three addresses in reality, but a single one from this changeset. As with most (all?) changesets from this user, there is no source tag.

I should have tagged the source of this changeset as "survey", as I checked the addresses in person, and made notes.

I see what you mean about `highway=cycleway` and `highway=footway` prioritizing one mode of transport over another, but I don't think it's quite accurate. It seems to me that ways on OSM default to the largest vehicle that can use it. A road that can be accessed by foot or by motor-vehicle is tagged as a road of some sort, even if it is used more by foot (of course if a separate sidewalk exists then we can map it separately, but that's another senario).

From what you describe (as I'm afraid I've apparently forgotten that section of the bike path) I think we should tag it as `highway=cycleway`, `foot=yes`, and `segregated=*`. This has been the approach that I've seen taken for multi-use paths elsewhere in the Lower Mainland.

Does that make seem reasonable to you?

I have received a direct message about this changeset from [user NM$L](@NM$L). I think it is more useful to discuss it publicly here, so I am posting my response here, with NM$L's original message quoted below.

The main thing is: If I changed the name tags on areas under actual control of the People's Republic of China (PRC) then I was in error.

I had found a bunch of places in India and Bhutan that only had Chinese names. Often weird Chinese names, like [村17](node/4476566701) (village 17), [湖泊Q](way/400964370) (Lake Q), [湖泊Y](way/450918748) (Lake Y), [湖泊z1](way/225467354), [河流G1](way/164510561) (River G1), and that sort of thing.

I'm sorry if I got mixed up and this changeset is in an area administered by the PRC.

That said, I don't think there is a rule saying that name tags in all disputed territories should be bilingual, though I agree it could be useful at times.

There is the [on the ground rule](osm.wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule) that specifies that we should use the name tags of those used by the people who live there. As such it is very important that you are sure that the land in question is actually administered by the PRC, prior to adding the values in name:zh tags to the default name tag. I see your userpage makes a strong political statement about the "unity and territorial integrity" of the PRC, and I think it's important to remember that the OSM database is not the place for political statements. I also see you are interested in editing the PRC's boarders, and seem especially interested in disputed territories. My Chinese language skills are very poor, but I understand your statement "中国一点都不能少" on your userpage to be a nationalistic slogan, encouraging the PRC's territorial claims. I'm concerned that you may be biased. I hope you are not.

In any case, thank you for bringing the potential error to my attention. As I do not know if this land is administered by the PRC I cannot say if the default name tags should be Chinese or not.

Keith

On 2020-10-06 11:16:47 UTC NM$L wrote:

> Dear keithonearth,
>
> The place name in the disputed area of China and Bhutan shouldn't be moved into `name:zh` tag. The name of both country should be shown on the map such as [Diaoyudao(Diaoyu Island), or Uotsurijima Island](relation/1270194) which written in both Chinese and Japanese. But now it seems that Bhutan haven't named them. And if Bhutan named these place too, the name should be written in two language. And also, I think this area is actually controlled by China. We've even set an administrative village there in 2016 called [Jieluobu, or 杰罗布 in Chinese](https://www.baidu.com/link?url=fEmOWN8yHD4sBtyGx1qjp8Q8kpVWtmLEBVxpvcdX15EloJExuHjRGSqoWGs_aUpw8jhMiZEUJT9k8oNqp8HWLGdgJf-L9Gn8Qsu1Ip496DGs5bJp04GEvfOxKHFBLF_-&wd=&eqid=e9189905000b5907000000065f7c4c62), whose [node](node/7978112357) was recently added by me and there're 23 herdsman living in Jieluobu by 2019. So what do you think?
>
> User NM$L

I've double checked the location of the end of the bike lanes, made a note when cycling by, and this edit is accurate. I can add "Survey" to the sources of this changeset.

Hi Ana,

Sorry I hadn't responded to your direct message yet, I wasn't ignoring you, just a busy few days.

Please feel free to make the edits that accurately reflect reality. You don't need to ask before fixing any mistakes I've made. Sorry to have made a mistake here. I don't know Port Moody well, and made the edits right after one of my few visits. I'm not sure what I did. Maybe I got mixed up between one sidewalk and another, or failed to see the signage permitting bicycle use.

But to be clear, this way is a wide bicycle path, like that on the North side of Murray St, east of the Moody St overpass? Or is it a normal sidewalk that cyclists are directed to use?

The specific tags it had prior to my edit were unusual, and I think should be improved on. If it's a proper bicycle path, the `highway=cycleway` would be good, and if a regular sidewalk then `highway=footway` with `bicycle=yes`.

Thank you for catching my mistake, and touching base about how best to fix it.

I don't think if it's a National Cycling Route or not is a meaningful question. It is a multi-use trail that includes bikes for most of it.

Here, on OSM, it makes the most sense to include the bike parts as a relation with the ncn tag.

I think focusing too much on if it *really* is a National Cycle Route or is not is unhelpful.

The route, despite it's shortcomings, is real. Our tagging scheme, despite it's shortcomings, is what we've got.

In a messy world we have it mapped as well as it can be.

Of course just because it's been one way for over 10 years doesn't make it right. I never said it did, I said that I was dubious that it is necessary for me to discuss the changes that I've made.

You continue to ignore significant questions that have been asked of you. Please address the statement that you've used the account of `acrosscanadatrails`, in the past, and engaged in similar edits.

My point of view continues to be that the TCT/TGT is a multi-use trail, with many sections designated for use by bicycle, and some sections designated exclusively for bicycle use. Those sections should be included in a relation tagged as a bicycle route.

I've done some surveying on the part of the route around Vancouver, and have cleaned up a bunch of foot-only sections that were in the cycle-route. Most of the route I've been on is designated for foot and bicycle use. There are a few bits where pedestrians and cyclists are directed to take separate routes. Additional there are many sections, like around Vancouver's Sea Wall, that are on segregated paths, that we have mapped as separate ways.

It's useful to map these separate routes, and tag them appropriately.

I am also concerned that you are trying to trying to brigand the discussion here, trying to drum up support on facebook and twitter.

Sam, just so you know, "getting the popcorn", is usually used to indicate taking enjoyment to watching conflict and disagreement. I hope you didn't mean it that way.

I hope things work out ok with the Canada Bikes Organization, and they are willing to signpost your routes. It'll be a major undertaking.

You seem to be right, there has been no talk about your changes on the mailing list. You probably should have posted there prior to making such sweeping changes to the Canada's bicycle routes. I am dubious that it is necessary for me to discuss the changes that I've made. I've removed your fictitious routes, and retagged the TCT/TGT back to how it has been for over 10 years. I've cleaned up the relations around Vancouver, removing foot only sections from the bicycle relation, and removing bicycle only sections from the foot relation. I think that tagging all sections, irrespective if they are designated for foot and/or bicycle, as a hiking route is unhelpful and misleading. There are plenty of sections that are specifically designated for one or the other, and having that indicated on the map is good.

I know, you point out that the TCT/TGT is not a bike route, you do not need to link to another facebook page. It is a multi-use trail, that includes cycling over much of it. It is useful to map these parts, and the bicycle route relation is the most useful way to do this.

I feel that you have ignored a few important points that have been brought up. You've ignored my post to help.osm.org that confirms the approach we've taken to multi-use routes. You've ignored my request to post the username You've ignored alester's report that you've used the account of acrosscanadatrails, in the past, did something similar.

The fact that you view my request to stop adding fictitious routes as a request to stop editing entirely also worries me. I've never said you should stop editing, just that you shouldn't add these routes. You are welcome to add things that really exist. Adding real bike infrastructure is a useful thing to do.

But it seems like the only reason you are here is to promote your personal routes, and that is not helpful.

alester, thank you for your helpful information. I'm sorry I didn't say so in my last post here. And I'm sorry if my reply came across as dismissive. I agree with your assessment of the TCT/TGT, but feel that assessments of its quality distracts from the question of how to represent it here. I think that how we're doing it is good, other than the fact that little of it is mapped.

If we had all/most of it mapped, showing real gaps and sections on the highway, it would be more useful for map users. As it is now the majority of gaps in the network are just unmapped sections.