Thank you!

Hi there, these roads are closed/removed, so they don't need to be edited.

Hey, no worries! Anything is possible, also it could be a case where the editor failed to notify you of a potential break. I appreciate all of the bike/ped related work you do for the community and the care you take. Thank you!

Fixed it here: changeset/113868477#map=19/38.88978/-77.01385

Be mindful of route relations when combining paths. This edit broke a section of the East Coast Greenway. Route relations require end to end connectivity so look out for them when working. Here's where the issue occurred: node/8398721839

Thank you for this information! I looked at some street view and this does look like a treacherous place to ride or walk, no arguments there. On OSM however, the bicycle=no tag indicates a legal/posted restriction, not that this is dangerous to ride. OpenStreetMap does not currently have a great means of tagging highways where bicycle or pedestrian access is allowed but dangerous or unsafe. It is something the community has discussed over on the OSMUS Slack, bicycle channel https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CKC0HGF4H

I'd encourage your participation if interested.

Looks like a ped/bike bridge is sorely needed here, by the way. I would hope that once opened, SC DOT would mark the bridges as ped/bike prohibited and we could restore the bicycle=no tagging, but for now, absent any legal posted restriction, we've got to keep the bicycle=yes tag.

Here you can see the ECG official map showing the crossing and a recommendation to use caution: https://map.greenway.org/?loc=17,32.78120,-79.96015

Denny, what is the source for the bicycle restriction? The bridges are part of the bicycle route the East Coast Greenway, so bicycle permission is granted by SC DOT. Do you know differently?

Here is my attempt: way/296739416#map=17/44.00194/-70.07515&layers=C

Hi there, this looks like a nice trail, but it does not have any tags. Is it open now? What is the surface like? I am happy to fix it for ya.

fixed this!

Hey there, fellow cyclist here. I've been working on the East Coast Greenway data in OSM and came across some issues in Philly. Everything is fixed now, but please have a look around the area where Spring Garden intersects Columbus. A few important bike routing things to consider.

Never add cycleways for regular curb bike lanes, unless there is vertical separate. This follows the NACTO guidelines. Physical separation is a bollard, parked car, curb, etc. Regular bike lanes should just be added to the roadway.

In places where the River Trail and sidewalk are the same thing, don't add a separate bike path there. It confuses routing and is poor form. If bikes are allowed on the sidewalk where it is named, then add bicycle=yes to the sidewalk.

Generally things looks good in the area and I commend you for your work adding new facilities around the area. -Elliott

The instructions in the map roulette are to change the road to a bridge if the existing waterway is a culvert. Phil probably added it as a culvert but the state/county do consider it a bridge. Truck routers would look at weight restrictions on the roadway but probably not on a waterway.

Boopington: You changed some railroads from disused to abandoned in this changeset. What was the reasoning for that change. Some of these railroads are in active still in fact. Generally I wouldn't mark a line abandoned until the line has been removed but the grade/clearing remains.

Hi there, nice work on the park paths and Welcome to the OSM project!! You seem new, so I appreciate you diving in. One minor area of improvement is where sidewalks cross roads. At these places, be sure to add a crossing, whether marked or unmarked. This helps a routing algorithm trace the path that the pedestrian would take. Here's an example I just added for you: way/998153493

Thank you!!

Let's try marking the restricted parts with bicycle=no and foot=no. Strava may only look for those rules. Same tags on the gates.

Hi, I've been thinking about this a bunch! I tested on Strava and see the issue. I haven't been there in person honestly (though I'd love to do a run around there) So is all access north of both gates disallowed? You cannot pass either north from Range Road to Wildlife loop, or from Wildlife Loop to Wildlife Loop? Strava heat seems to indicate this. I would definitely mark those sections as access=private.

Hello there again. I appreciate the spirit of this work (I used to fix Strava routing errors with their tool back when Paul Mach worked there) but these sorts of disconnects are improper. I have to reconnect them for some place mapping I'm working on in the area. The better thing to do would be to mark the roads that are private or no access and then wait a year or so for Strava to update their routing data. They are pretty slow when it comes to OSM edits. Hopefully that improves.

Hello there, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I hope you've been welcomed already! I see you're into Strava and mapping for exercise routing. I am into that as well, so I can appreciate this sort of edit, but there are some OSM norms to be aware of when working around routing. The map and data is for many purposes and so it should be maintained considering all of them. These BGE tracks are real paths and the utility companies may use this data for their purposes. I like to jog along these paths and came across a BGE crew once. They said it is fine to run there, the no trespassing only applies to motor vehicles (they don't want cars or ATVs back there). BGE typically owns the land in Maryland parks where the power line tracks become paths too. Technically they would be considered private the same as this, but of course, that is not the case. Therefore, it is best to leave these sorts of paths in and call them highway=track, which are unmaintained, typically unpaved roads, used for utility vehicle access. I map the ones along the BGE rights of way, railroads, and fire roads in the reservoirs this way. Keep up the good mapping! -Elliott

Thank you for working on my challenge!

Yes, rivers do change over time. The original shape was imported as a census designated place boundary, thus why I'd adjusted it in this changeset. Your revision looks fine though, just don't break the relations.