> otherwise both of the names will render?

Depends on the renderer, but in general, yes. A name will render for every object given a name. Trail names in bridges make it look like the bridge has a name of its own. Even more confusing, a search for a name will return every object given that name. It can be hard to pick out a trail's overall relation amongst the noise.

> Just leave it blank or label the path with a local trail name?

When I do not have the time to create a relation and document it on our Michigan trail project's wiki page [1], or the trail is short, I will add the name just to the trail's largest segment. Naming one segment is enough to make the trail render, be searchable, and show amongst routing instructions. And, I only name a thing after I have found its name on a sign or official document [2].

[1] osm.wiki/Michigan/Trails
[2] osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

You mean besides the general cautions against importing/copying other people's work because it may be inaccurate / out of date, have an incompatible license, or clash with what is already mapped ...

This case it might be fine. It's just that I only map what I surveyed or verified. Lincoln Brick Park has been on my to-do list for a very long time. Before I could map it I had to walk its trails again to capture and upload GPS traces to OpenStreetMap. Maybe even capture Mapillary imagery.

When I map, I am always thinking of things like the families who will use my edits to walk a new trail or the person trying to route their wheelchair across town, or the self-driving car depending on the accuracy of my edits. In all these cases it is better that the data is accurate than every area is filled in with something.

Last I looked, Trailfork's data is not licensed in a compatible way for use in OpenStreetMap. The various other sources may have the same problem. For accuracy and licensing, physical surveys of an area should be the preferred method of data collection.

For quick access to changeset discussions, bookmark this:
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10927321&showblockedcontributors

Or the top of that site: https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Trail_Caretaker

OSMCha has a speech bubble for changesets with disucussions:
https://osmcha.org/?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22Trail_Caretaker%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22Trail_Caretaker%22%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%7D

You mean, you didn't survey it to see if these trails actually exist and collect GPS traces?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153389221

This is a multi-use path, not a cycleway.
* highway=path
* osm.wiki/Michigan#Pedestrian_ways

The names are on the respective relations. No need to also have the name on the way. Look at the various renders, doing so is causing an echo affect with the name doubled up and confusing.

It would help if _someone_ wasn't going behind us undoing all this work. 😒
changeset/139847915

It prevents routing for walking and wheelchair use. And some of these paths allow horses or ATVs.

Yesterday I rode, with a 360 camera, another 16 miles (32 total) of The Great-Lake-To-Lake trail, starting at Wixom to Pontiac. The section was also signed to give walkers the right-of-way and the "abandoned railway" has long since been replaced or lost to time.

I don't get to do these rides often, so it will be slow going waiting for me to correct them. 😏

It is easy to do and I did the same. Seems everyone has to do it for some number of miles before they realize the error.

I only mentioned it on this old edit as I thought you might be able to help new comers avoid the same mistake.

I was just there and captured some Mapillary imagery along Lakeshore Drive. That was definitely a multi-use path (cycleway means bicycle=designated).
osm.wiki/Michigan#Pedestrian_ways

Thanks for mapping this. I meant to get back to mapping Hidden Lakes after our recent visit.

I see that you connected the path to the driveway. That is great. To complete the routing you will also want to connect other connected things. In this case driveways and/or parking isle ways to the parking lot area.

Not sure that you do this, but a related mistake that I used to make was connecting unrelated things. A big one I see all the time is land use areas and boundaries connected to all kinds of unrelated things.

For routing, please connect the river's way where it crosses the edges of its areas.
Also, for routing and other reasons, I prefer to use multiple connected areas over giant relations. See how the Grand River has been mapped as an example.

The Michigan wiki page has a common tagging cheat-sheet and monthly meeting information.
osm.wiki/Michigan

I realize you changed this a year ago, but just so you and I can stop flip-flopping these tags...
highway=cycleway means bicycle=designated.
highway=path is more appropriate for nearly every pedestrian way in Michigan. In fact, I am finding most of our mixed-use paths have signs and/or rules posted stating cyclists must yield the right of way. I fix these all over the place, after I've visited the trail and captured Mapillary imagery. I blame iD for suggesting cycleway, where path would be a better starting place. People walking or in wheelchairs will appreciate the routing working correctly for them.
Besides the wiki pages of those tags, see also:
osm.wiki/Michigan#Common_Tagging_Schemes

OpenStreetMap is not a picture of the world from above, it is useful data for navigating the world which is rendered into a picture and much more.

And to those with the time to micro-map, I can think of more useful uses of that time. I also hope they plan to update their work as the truth on the ground changes. I know I don't have the time to maintain it.

osm.wiki/Good_practice

...if again I find that it would *not be* useful...

Including the pier addition with unrelated edits was my mistake. I have already added it back, with a few other details of the park.

You will find that nearly all of my edits are done after I have physically been to an area. I try to also capture Mapillary imagery. It seems that my camera powered down during my drive on Monday not long before I reached this area. So, now I have no proof of what I saw.

Trains are great. I like trains too. However, OpenStreetMap is a geospatial database that attempts to digitally represent _current_ realities.

When a railway is converted into something else, for instance a driveway, someone's home, a multiuse path; it is no longer a railway, abandoned or otherwise. It is now that new thing.

When an old railway is completely lost to time and can no longer be traversed on foot, of what value is to OpenStreetMap users? If anything it adds noise, implying someone might traverse its length or navigate by it, but it is gone... Its traces only visible using LIDAR or someone with a keen eye viewing a tree line in areal imagery. It is time that the former railway is moved to the Historical Map or accessed from OpenStreetMap's history.

You are welcome to put the abandoned railway back. I will get back over to that area eventually. I will then try harder to collect proof before I map what I find. And if again I find that it would be useful to have mapped what once was (as sad as it might be), I will map the area accordingly.

Have you seen this railway?

Nope. Thanks.

I meant to delete "railway", as it has long since been converted into a pathway.

Found this a year later.
See the Michigan Wiki page for how we tag multi-use paths. When in doubt highway=path. Footway means foot=designated, as in, only for foot traffic. osm.wiki/Michigan#Common_Tagging_Schemes

Found this a year later, but this was correctly tagged as highway=path
A cycleway is only for bicycles (and implies freeway like experience).
Have a look at the following pages:
* osm.wiki/Michigan#Common_Tagging_Schemes
* osm.wiki/Mountain_biking
Also see the Michigan Wikipage for information about our monthly meetings.