Hi Aduxas, thx for your comment. i'm not known to the place. Just fixed the foot=sidewalk to footway=sidewalk. If the classification of the footway is unclear it's better removed. Which i did, Kind regards

Hi Limes, thanks for the comment. I'm not known top to area. I just translated the value to common tagging scheme. But you are right that the original was probably already 'wrong'. I changed it to unknown. kind regards

Gerne gemacht, grusse Joris

Hi Exomat, i re-added the designation corepath. Kind regards Joris

Hi Alex, no hard feelings. Every body has its own intentions spending too much time over here. 'Odd' access tags and values appear in my searches hoping to improve automated routing by whatever third party software that uses osm-data. That's why i came along.
For me, optional_sidepath equals to: "if you like you can use a sidepath". That sounds the same as a legally foot=yes for the Leinestrasse. In Germany that is considered to be the default, so basically it is not really nescessary to add it any way. However i personally do prefer to be as explicit as possible, so foot=yes would do as well. Splitting the road and tag foot=use_sidepath is the most detailed way of tagging and probably fits best in your precise approach. I leave it up to you.
Concerning the bicycle=optional_sidepath, it is often used wrong in my opinion. Because often there is no sidepath available or it’s arguable considered just to be ‘dangerous’. Access/motor_vehicle/bicycle/foot should describe the legal access, not the preferred. For these cases i would say it's a legal: bicycle=yes + class:bicycle=-1/1/2/3. But you are right that there are still a couple of thousend of them and described in the wiki, so to be considered 'in use’ :-). Kind regards, Joris

Hi Alex, thx for your time to comment. When using "use_sidepath" or "separate" wiki states that there should be drawn a compulsory line (eg footpath/sidewalk) to really redirect routing over this sidepath. Since this line is not avaliable (only a small part) the edit was meanigfull and helping automated routing tools ro route by foot over the Leinestrasse. There is only 1 usage of foot=optional_sidepath tagged in the world of osm, this could be a clou that it is a rather odd tagging scheme. Of course it is not wrong to introduce new tags. Happy mapping, kind regards, Joris

Hallo A35k, danke fur die nachricht und dus änderen. gr Joris

Dankjewel voor de uitleg, gr Joris

Dag Joost! dankjewel, ik heb bicycle=yes verwijderd, groeten Joris

Hi Richard, thx for your reply, i actually dont care very much about nuances in any tagging accept for the very few access-tags and values osm.wiki/Tag:(access=, osm.wiki/Tag:bicycle=, osm.wiki/Tag:motor_vehicle=, osm.wiki/Tag:foot=) which are extremely important and used worldwide by hundreds of automated apps using these tags and values for routing purposes. However not 'wrong': On over 7.000.000 bicycle=* values and over 19.00.000 access=* values, it does not make any sense creating a first 'single used nuance value'. Not a single app would understand the meaning of it. Especially if the value could easily be translated to fit into existing value scheme. If you ask komoot, b-router, waze, garmin or whatever app to calculate a route by bicycle? Should they route you over there or not? From over here, off course i can't tell. But if it's a no in your opinion : bicycle=no,private would be appropriate. If it's a yes: bicyle=yes,permissive,designated,official,guests,customers or class:bicyle=-2,-1,0,1,2) would do. Permissive and tolerated in your explanation means both: no legal way but as long as the 'upper somebody' does not disagree you cycle there it's oke.
Kind regards.

Please feel free to change it to a 'yes, no or private' or a class:bicycle={0,-1,-2,-3). I have never been close to the area :-)

Hi Ricard !, thx for your question. Tolerated is a synonym for permissive (According to wiki Permissive in OSM means : tolerated as long access not witdrawn by legal owners) Because the value 'tolerated' was only used once in osm bicyle-tag, and permissive is used 87333 times i changed it to the more regular tagging scheme. Kind regards Joris

Hello Marc, people's home driveways are not to be used by the general public but for specific personal residential use. Wiki describes it as: access=private si non accessible au public , kind regards Joris

Dag Jens, je hebt cycleway=track toegevoegd aan de bikschotenlaan maar als het fietspad als aparte blauwe lijn is ingetekend voegen we geen fietskenmerken toe aan de hoofdweg : zie de beschrijving van cycleway : osm.wiki/NL:Key:cycleway?uselang=nl

Dag Jens, ik heb path teruggedraaid naar de oorspronkelijke waarde footway. Footway geeft aan dat het voor alleen voor wandelaars is en path zou aangeven dat het ook voor andere gebruikers is zoals fietsers. Maar voor zover ik weet mogen die niet door de tuin fietsen. Zie osm.wiki/NL:Tag:highway=footway?uselang=nl gr Joris

Hallo Jens, je wijziging in deze changeset was het verwijderen van een sloot en niet een wandelpad. De sloot bestaat en heb ik teruggeplaatst.

Dag Jens ik heb deze camera teruggeplaatst. Het betreft ook geen flitscamera maar zoals de tagging correct aangeeft een politiecamera. De bron (website) stond erbij vermeld en hij bestaat ook (Dome-camera aan de verlichtingspaal)

Dag Jens, zojuist nagefietst, in het te boelaarpark is alle ondergrond ofwel asfalt (de hoofdweg) ofwel compacted/fine_gravel. Je hebt er bewust cobbelstone van gemaakt, dat zijn kasseien of natuurlijke geplaveide stenen. De oorpronkelijke tagging was dus al juist. gr Joris

Dag Jens, ik ben zojuist in het te boelaar park alle paden gaan nafietsen. Ze zijn allemaal toegankelijk (zie mijn gps trace). Ik heb ze terug op access is yes gezet. Gelieve zo te laten. Gr Joris

np, Toni, i bounce on my own typo's as well :-) gr Joris