piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 12:34:17+00:00): Particularly I would not go deleting route Relation: 8840676 - as my 'note' in its metadata explains, it is one of Lambeth's current flagship 'Healthy Routes' through their LTNs! It is mapped as such in their consultation and project documents. 

I mean, I know it would be nice if it had proper shiny metal route signs. And it doesn't. But my view is that this is a situation where good OpenStreetMap tagging can help overcome some of the limitations of half-arsed infrastructure and incoherent/absent signage by helping people see the intended route. Rather than compounding the problem by deleting it :)
Simon Still (2020-12-15 12:35:39+00:00): Checking the paper maps now, these roads were coloured yellow and the key describes as "other roads that have been recommended by cyclists" which I dont think meets the requirements for something to be mapped.  It's neither signposted nor visible on the ground. 

More to the point, they make using the map less intuitive because they make ACTUAL routes harder to pick out.  The. TfL maps addressed this issue by having the cycle routes in blue and the 'other roads' in yellow.  OSM doesn't make that distinction
Simon Still (2020-12-15 12:38:51+00:00): Thanks for flagging the source of these sections but its my view that confirms these have no place in the OSM map.
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 12:44:18+00:00): I would agree actually about the canonical status of the yellow 'recommended by cyclists' routes on the TfL paper maps. I would not advocate tagging something on OSM just because it was yellow on those old maps! :)
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 12:46:06+00:00): I would also agree that having too many un-numbered un-labelled 'local' routes on OSM is not really helpful, as you just get a big confusing zig-zag of (pink, usually, depending on your choice of renderer ;) everywhere.
Simon Still (2020-12-15 12:47:52+00:00): I suspect the presence of these roads marked as 'cycle route' which dont' actually offer any level of service (especially given massive increase in 'non main road' traffic in the last decade) may contribute to cycle routing engines giving such poor quality routes in London - avoiding good main road cycle infra and producing very complex back street routes that dont follow roads that are actually quiet.
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 12:52:57+00:00): Just to be clear though: most of the un-numbered local routes weren't talking about here weren't on OSM because they were yellow on old TfL paper maps.  They have mostly been added by user 'MacLondon' as a result of careful visual inspection: they nearly all correspond to roads that the Borough in question has marked with 'cycle route' symbols on the carriageway.  (One of the handiest ways to double-check them is to look at Google Maps' satellite view, where with the highest quality 'Bing' imagery you can usually see the cycle symbols if you zoom in). 

These carriageway-marking-only routes the lowliest sub-LCN tier of London's cycle routes ;)  They clearly are An Actual Thing thought. The various borough Highways Departments have them on their street plans and send men out to paint cycle symbols on them :) 

For my part, I have tried to improve/differentiate them by adding metadata to the relation tag.
Simon Still (2020-12-15 12:53:12+00:00): But I did wonder about the Lambeth Healthy Routes - as the LCC borough chair I'm across the new infra and via LCC have been highlighting the need for wayfinding across London to be improved (and asked the question of how we can ensure that beneficial routes through LTNs are usable and picked up by routing engines).

Personally I think the signage should come first - the map should reflect what exists and/or is legally defined.  Tagging for the routing engine, like tagging for the renderer, should be avoided.
Simon Still (2020-12-15 13:00:42+00:00): if there is a consensus that they should be here fine, but my view is that MacLondon's approach was misguided.  

Perhaps a wider discussion on TalkGB is needed to achieve consensus on what constitutes a route - council thinking has moved on, TfL and boroughs now have quality standards and many sections of LCN route no longer exist on the ground.  eg none of the LCN section to the west of Brockwell park is signposted any longer, nor does it have 1057 symbols on the road.
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 13:03:09+00:00): I couldn't offer a useful view on routing engines and routing apps as they're not something I tend to use myself :) 

I do think (some of) these lowly carriageway-marking only routes have some utility and logic to them. 
For example, there is one which zig-zags from LCN25 (Morval Road / Dalberg Road) up to Atlantic / Railton Road which usefully picks out a way to get through a grid of residential streets from one end to the other. 
In my view OSM is offering a helpful service if it tags them, making them easier to find. 

Others of them are just bonkers though ;) (for example that one at Dolman Street - Hubert Grove where the council have painted a bike symbol and an arrow invite cyclists to cycle up some concrete steps looool)
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 13:09:07+00:00): I think there is always a danger if we adopt the strategy on OSM of 'well, the council/TfL are the official highway authority so we should just match their signs' - because there are innumerable instances of their signs or maps being dubious or missing or wrong :) And I don't think it's helpful for OSM to slavishly reproduce their failings or errors. Rather, with little pragmatism and common sense we can help create a coherent map.
A good example is TfL's own current online cycle map, which is insanely erroneous :) It omits lots of things which do exist on the ground, but includes plenty of things which don't (yet?) exist. 
For example, in Lambeth it has declared there is a new cycleway from Norwood Road/Brockwell Park down to Valley Road. When their simply isn't :)
Simon Still (2020-12-15 13:14:51+00:00): Lets take to the main discussion - these "routes" were not shown on the most recently published map from Lambeth Council.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 13:20:47+00:00): Ah, yes well that is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Many London boroughs, Lambeth included, publish 'cycle maps' on their websites which are, to be charitable, complete pants :)  The Lambeth one is nearly a decade out of date and, as you note, entirely omits most of the old LCN routes and all of those 'carriageway marking only' routes. 
And for balance, it includes some other things which don't exist :)  ('Cycle Superhighway 5 fro Oval to Lewisham, due 2013, anyone? ;) 
As this map is patently flawed, one has to take a pragmatic approach to using it as useful evidence for including or not including things on OSM :)
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 13:30:14+00:00): I think you're right that it could be useful to take a straw poll on this on TalkGB (although I don't actually subscribe to that mailing list myself!). 

Notwithstanding everything said above, I think THIS document is the primary case for including these carriage-marking-only routes on OSM:  TfL's "London Cycle Design Standards"
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter6-signsandmarkings.pdf
Chapter 6, section 6.2.5 page 10

This discusses what those '1057 cycle symbols' mean. 
I would argue that on the routes you've deleted, they were being used primarily in their 3rd criteria of 'For wayfinding: indicated a ROUTE [emphasis added ;) , particularly at a decision point. 

I did wonder about the significance of them not being accompanied by but '967' metal cycle signs, but the Design Standards explicitly deprecate their use here ("should only be used with 1057 road markings where there is an additional need to alert *other* [emphasis added again] road users"). - presumably that saves cost and street clutter. 

Note the photo page 11 with the caption 'showing CONTINUATION OF A CYCLE ROUTE...'
Simon Still (2020-12-15 13:30:37+00:00): Agreed - it's terrible.  but I think it showed the extent of maintained, signposted routes at the time. The LCN routes not shown have largely disappeared - Palace Road to Brockwell Park has nothing north of A205 crossing.... 

 So you've got one map that misses some stuff that does still exist and OSM which has loads of stuff that never existed in a useful form in the first place....

maybe time for a cleanup?
Simon Still (2020-12-15 14:15:23+00:00): "This discusses what those '1057 cycle symbols' mean. "

and needs to be read in conjunction with the rest of the document. Perhaps from page 5. 
and probably TfL's cycleway signing guidelines 
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/cycleways-signing-guidance.pdf 

For OSM I'm not clear these sections of unnumbered, unsignposted road meet the definition of a route  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes

(blog here might also be of interest https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1)
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 15:41:59+00:00): Cheers Simon. 
My reading of the various Design Guidelines is that those old '1057 cycle symbols' on the carriageway were indeed used by many of the boroughs during the 'LCN-era' to provide low-key waymarking on some very low-key routes 

I would say the question at hand here is whether those very low-key routes merit (or meet the criterea for) tagging as route relations on OSM. 
My view on that would be 'yes', within reason, making judicious use of metadata tags to help users make sense of them all. 

The OSM wiki's definition of what should count as a 'route' I tend to not get too dogmatic about, as these definitions tend to get written up by people just trying to find the best general way to describe all the messy variations that occur worldwide, and what seems ideal for a luxury Belgian cycle network may not map so helpfully to the back streets of Brixton.
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 15:55:48+00:00): Another reason why I tend to favour keeping these old scrag-ends of LCN-era stuff tagged on OSM is because I have seen several boroughs re-use/upgrade bits of these old routes with LTNs, often without the budget for any new signage. 

If OSM declines to tag these (because they don't have nice metal route signs) then we'll be omitting significant parts London's bleeding edge cycling revolution :) 

Two examples from Lambeth borough: 
-  Railton Road - Atlantic Road. This was just an old 1057-carriageway marked low-key route, from Herne Hill to Brixton ...
now upgraded with several modal filters and bus gates, but not given any new signage... whilst signage stays up on the much less cycle friendly LCN25. It seems very odd to me to delete this new 'healthy route' from OSM but keep LCN25. 


Another one is this Brockwell - Streatham Common route https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7426656 which curiously is now labelled on Cycleway on TfL's online map. 
It has some old LCN signage (but most of it is now missing at key junctions or pointing the wrong way!) ... it also has some new modal filters... but actually most of it has no waymarking at all. 
MacLondon's solution was to omit tagging some of the bits with no waymarking (that only existed on TfL's online map) but upgrade the tags on old old LCN scrag-ends.
Simon Still (2020-12-15 16:44:01+00:00): and that's where we disagree - I'm lobbying council/Tfl for wayfinding and signage through the LTNs at which point I'd want it mapped in OSM.

The Brockwell - Streatham common route is a case in point. Even knowing it was there I got lost on High Trees when trying to follow it to scope out what needs to be upgraded (as it's on lambeth healthy routes plan and funding is being sought) 

having it on the map as a 'planned route' as is now is one thing but as an LCN route made no sense - it doesn't exist in any sense and there is little evidence it was ever even completed - there was no dropped kerb at the high trees/upper Tulse Hill connection for example
Simon Still (2020-12-15 16:50:03+00:00): Head south from Upper Tulse Hill there are no 1057's. At the junction with palace road there is a single blue finger post pointing northwest marked 'brixton'.  Which is odd given you've just headed south away from Brixton.... 

I'd tried tracking down the Palace Road LCN route and other than that sign (and another at the crossing near Cotherstone) there is no evidence that it exists.
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 17:00:16+00:00): Well...I mean it really *was* (and I guess still is) an LCN route. So saying that it shouldn't be on a map because it's a bit rubbish seems a bit silly to me.  
Indeed, *because* it was on the map, I was able to find it and follow it when I moved to the borough, despite it being a bit crap. So from my point of view, that's kudos to the map, and if it was instead grumpily removed from the map then even fewer people would be able to use the route! :) 

I know exactly the bit you mean at High Trees (a 'modal filter' of many years standing, ironically!). And yes, there is no sign at the junction of Upper Tulse Hill & High Trees (nor at Brockwell Park Gardens/Trinity Rise). And no dropped kerb at the High Trees modal filter. All these things are crap and I've reported them in the past to the council via FixMyStreets...  But there (is a sign at the junction of Norwood Road and Brockwell Park Gardens, there is a kerb-segregated cycle lane on Trinity Rise, there is a cycle path from Ryecroft Close to Christchurch Road etc etc ...  They are what they are. 
They've been incrementally improved this year with more modal filters at Hillside Gardens and Hillside Passage. 

If you remove mediocre routes from maps surely you'll just drive down awareness and use of existing mediocre infrastructure which will then be touted as in indicator of insufficient demand in the first place?
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 17:07:51+00:00): (Sorry, we posted across each other there!) 

Yeah the Brockwell Park - Streatham un-numbered LCN route uses metal fingerpost signs, not 1057 carriageway marking. 
The fingerpost sign on High Trees is pointing the wrong way, as I reported to the council a few months ago https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/2289395

The Palace Road route (https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=11571949 ) is rather obscure but does surely exist - there are fingerpost signs and/or rectangular '967' blue cycle route signs along it reasonably consistently from the junction with Rosendale Road in the east to Leander Road in the west, about 3/4 of the junctions ;) The worst one is where it crosses Norwood Road, I think the signs there weren't awol (and there's even a rogue one pointing south along Norwood Road instead of getting you to Palace Road)
Simon Still (2020-12-15 17:09:28+00:00): Still disagree - basic principle 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map

"When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there."

Not on council maps
Not on Tfl maps
Does not exist on the ground in a meaningful (or followable) form.  

We're going round in circles
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 17:22:48+00:00): Honestly that wiki entry is precisely why I got into editing OSM when I moved to London:
"If you believe that you can improve something, then do it." 
- I found that existing mapping of cycle routes as-observed-on-the-ground (the various stray fingerpost signs etc etc that I'd see) was awful, so I improved it :) 
(By existing mapping being awful, I mean the maps available from Sustrans, TfL and my local council). 

I do not see that it makes sense to delete a cycle route from a map because a fingerpost sign got blown round in the wind and the council hasn't bothered fixing it (yet). A good map means you can still follow the route and not get lost. 

You seem to by wanting to tie your map edits to being part of a political lobbying campaign for LTNs.  That sort of agenda is beyond the scope of what OSM is trying to achieve. 

By all means, as a paid up LCC member myself, I would be very supportive of the LCC drawing upon selective use of OSM data to create our own London cycle map. I think that could be a valuable use of LCC resources. And such a map could be well tailored and focus to emphasize and/or promote particular types of use. 

But wanting to remove mediocre old cycle routes from OSM because of want to promote better cycle routes is not something I can condone.
Simon Still (2020-12-15 17:41:42+00:00): Not at all, but I think your approach to map routes you 'want' to be there is against the core principles of OSM.  

I want to remove old mediocre cycle routes from OSM because they are not considered current routes by council or Tfl and are not marked well enough to be followable or useful.
Simon Still (2020-12-15 17:45:04+00:00): These are not like bridleways where there is a legal right of way and we should map it so that it's not lost.  

The roads or paths still exist in these cases but not the things that actually make them a 'route'
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 17:47:53+00:00): Maps show all sorts of old, ruined and derelict things. 
I would say you're confusing a value-judgement of how 'useful' something is, and how well documented it is by your local council, with what is actually on the ground. 

I have removed numerous routes from OSM (or changed their tag value to 'route=historic') if (as sometimes happens) the council have gone out and blowtorched the markings off the tarmac and taken then signs down. 
But that's not the same as the route just being a bit rubbish or some of the signs needing repaired.
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 17:59:40+00:00): Simon, when you say: "The roads or paths still exist in these cases but not the things that actually make them a 'route'" - 

I think you're incorrect there - if we come back to what start this whole deletion spree of yours :)  –  for the routes in the question, the "things that actually make them a route" (namely, '1057 cycle symbols' on the carriageway) *do* still exist.  They are still there on the tarmac.  

If Lambeth re-surfaced the road and did not refresh the markings then yes, the route is gone. 
In some cases I have seen that happen. In others (e.g. Loughborough Park - Sommerleyton Road) I have seen the symbols refreshed when the tarmac was redone.
ramthelinefeed (2020-12-15 12:15:19+00:00): Hi Simon, this 'route' is not numbered under a scheme or waymarked with signposts, but it carriageway-marked on the ground with cycle symbols (and was included in the most recent TfL paper cycle maps [2017] as a designated route). 
I would argue to revert your changeset.
EneaSuper (2020-12-15 13:00:07+00:00): Ciao Cirobob, hai fatto davvero un buon lavoro.

Sarebbe bello fare altrettanto con i graffiti presenti sulle pile della Sopraelevata, ma io non saprei proprio come posizionarli correttamente...
Cirobob (2020-12-17 20:26:53+00:00): Ciao, ti ringrazio! Hai ragione, e l'intenzione di proseguire verso il centro in realtà c'è. E magari si potrebbe iniziare come dici con quelli sulle pile della Sopraelevata, che sono un progetto unico, sono notevoli e su cui è più facile reperire informazioni. Non saprei bene neanche io come sia meglio posizionarli, infatti il punto "We love muro zero (8224073287, v1)" che ho inserito è in una situazione simile, disegnato sul muraglione che sostiene a monte il viadotto che raccorda Via Guido Rossa con l'autostrada. L'ho posizionato lì in prossimità ma non sapevo come indicarlo più correttamente
EneaSuper (2020-12-18 12:19:56+00:00): Ok, magari ci risentiamo quando avremo le idee più chiare 🙂
BeJotEl (2020-12-20 12:14:44+00:00): Wieso wurden hier Gebäude/-teile in Wege "verwandelt"?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95753674
trigpoint (2020-12-16 17:47:16+00:00): Bore da.
This edit has gone rather wrong, you have deleted rights of way from Aberdyfi Golf Course. 

As can be seen from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/425788505/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/425788503/history these are legal rights of way and as I am sure you are aware they cannot be closed without legal process so I am wondering why you have deleted them?

Cheers Phil
joel56dt (2020-12-15 23:32:55+00:00): I would like to understand why you removed this path. Thanks.
Rps333 (2020-12-15 23:52:27+00:00): There was a note saying it wasn't there.. The imagery did really show it either.  So I removed it and closed the note.
jeremiah-england (2020-12-13 14:30:01+00:00): I think this bot reverted my edit here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95755441

I'm not sure why it got flagged. It wasn't AI generated. Maybe because I used JOSM's circle tool to fix a existing shape?
jeremiah-england (2020-12-13 14:56:24+00:00): Actually, when I download from that location in josm again, it looks like the data is still there. It's just taking a while to render I think.
MikeN (2020-12-13 15:37:57+00:00): Hi, I believe this is an inconvenient feature of the OSM history display.   Any large changeset having a bounding rectangle covering a small area will show in the history tab.   Then to see if the large changeset affected the area of interest, the OSMCHA tool must be used.    I think OSMCHA also has a way to define an area of interest that won't be affected by large changesets.
MikeN (2020-12-13 15:50:03+00:00): And you're right - the data is still there.  The data can render within a minute, but may be delayed by minutes or hours depending on system load.
jeremiah-england (2020-12-13 15:52:54+00:00): Thanks @MikeN! I just looked into the OSMCha. You can filter chansets by bounding box area size, that way avoiding large ones as you suggested.
limes11 (2022-10-09 21:43:56+00:00): Es gibt hier etwas Kritik an der Auszeichung als Aussichtpunkt. Vielleicht kannst du das kurz kommentieren, so ein Hinweis muss ja nicht ewig offen bleiben. Danke!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3067354
gpermant (2022-10-10 11:01:51+00:00): Wo ist denn die Kritik, der Hinweis?
die Aussicht da ist großartig, auf das Schiller-National-Museum am anderen Neckaruferund über Ludwigsburg.
limes11 (2022-10-10 11:09:02+00:00): Im Hinweis, der Link ist in meinem Kommentar.
ALu68 (2020-12-23 17:25:07+00:00): Hello th62pi,

Seamark tags https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects
are used for OpenSeaMap http://www.openseamap.org/ .

Misuse for fun & comedy: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/815881186/history & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882126449/history

More information about OSM good practices can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice & https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer for details.

Merry Christmas.
DonRoPL (2023-01-02 17:42:16+00:00): what does "Beiko 1" mean?
zorglubu (2020-12-13 15:05:02+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci pour votre contribution. Si la question concerne bien le tracé et les étiquettes de la rue Hébert, c'est parfait :-)
J'ai juste recalé le tracé de la Place Gal de Gaulle.
Continuez à améliorer OSM comme cela. Merci encore.
Gregory UKR (2020-12-13 16:02:00+00:00): Доброго вечора! Не зовсім розумію суть ваших правок. Межі лісу -  це фактичні межі території з високою щільністю дерев. Межі парку - це адміністративно встановлені межі.  Вони не співпадають. Десь у адміністративних межах парку немає дерев, десь дерева ростуть за адміністративними межами парку. То з якою метою ви намагаєтесь фактичні природні межі і адміністративні межі представити однією лінією. Чим вам дві лінії заважають?
andergrin (2020-12-13 16:08:35+00:00): Я намагався внести межі НПП Голосіївський за допомогою зв'язків, що дозволяє використати лінії, що вже існують. Така рекомендація у вікі. Так, одна і та сама лінія у відношеннях може бути і частиною дороги, і частиною поля, і частиною лісу, і частиною адмінмежі.
Gregory UKR (2020-12-13 17:16:14+00:00): Ви ж бачите, що ліс, як змінне природне явище, тут іноді виходить трохи за межі Києва, іноді навпаки. НПП «Голосіївський» був створений у місті Києві. Отже, ось тут, як межу НПП «Голосіївський» має сенс, як на мене, взяти частину межі Києва (293111275), а не поточну лінію лісу (884332479).
andergrin (2020-12-13 17:20:42+00:00): Я керувався тою схемою, що є на сайті НПП, там та ділянка виходить за межі м. Київ. Інших джерел я не маю