piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SHARCRASH (2025-05-17 20:29:10+00:00): Hello,

The fact that you've put the value "path" instead of tracks attracted my eye. So I checked you contribution and sorry to say that I'm quite sure you're mistaken about the connection here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12840541546 . If you've had been on site, you should have known there's a ravine between the two ways (see LIDAR). So either there's a bridge, or heavy off-road vehicles drive across it directly or go all the way down into the ravine (sometimes they do this), but the position of your plotting on both ways doesn't reflect any of these cases.

This way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1387067323 continues to NW and gets out of the forest a bit above this node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11085689156

As for this way www.openstreetmap.org/way/162142913 you made continue, what you see on the aerial photos might just be a landmarking for the parcel limit, there is one according cadastre roughly on there (it's sometimes not precise).
SOSOwner (2025-05-15 18:56:57+00:00): And now for the sources (and explanations):

Service 7A is a new route, operated by First Essex.
https://bustimes.org/services/7a-hadleigh-hockley#map

Routes 7, 21C, and 63 have changed operators: 
- 21C and 63 from NIBSbuses to First Essex
- Certain services on the 7, formerly run by Stephensons of Essex, are now operated by First Essex. Journeys on route 7 operated by Arriva Herts & Essex are unaffected.
https://bustimes.org/services/7-southend-rayleigh
https://bustimes.org/services/21c-hadleigh-morrisons-benfleet-rail-station-seavi
https://bustimes.org/services/63-the-weir-police-lodge-via-barling-rochford

Routes 21, 26, 27, and 28 had minor changes to bus operator tags ("First in Essex" to "First Essex").
https://bustimes.org/services/21-southend-creek-road
https://bustimes.org/services/26-hadleigh-leigh-on-sea-westcliff-on-sea-travel-c
https://bustimes.org/services/27-southend-travel-centre-london-road-kents-hill-r
https://bustimes.org/services/28-southend-benfleet_pitsea-basildon
joost schouppe (2025-07-25 11:06:15+00:00): Ik begrijp dat De Zander misschien niet helemaal een gevangenis is, maar onder "juvenile" kan je vanalles verstaan, dus de tagging is nu wel minder precies dan voorheen...
Eebie (2025-07-26 07:31:36+00:00): Ik heb het opgesplitst omdat het niet precies was. Iets is geen gevangenis omdat het een gevangenis lijkt. Het gebruikte criterium is de lijst van penitentiaire inrichtingen van het ministerie (of FOD) van Justitie: https://justitie.belgium.be/nl/themas_en_dossiers/gevangenissen/belgische_gevangenissen en een vergelijking met andere Gemeenschapsinstellingen.
Gemeenschapsinstelling De Zande (Campus Ruiselede) is een gesloten jeugdinstelling van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap en staat niet op de lijst van Justitie wel op die van Jeugdhulp. Toegegeven, met zijn hoge omheiningen van fijnmazige hekken lijkt het op een gevangenis. Het belendende Penitentiar Landbouwcentrum Ruiselede lijkt dan weer niet op een gevangenis.  Het is een open instelling zonder hoge hekken maar het is toch een gevangenis omdat het een instelling van Justitie is. Het nabije Gemeenschapsinstelling De Zande (Campus Wingene) in de straat Sint Pietersveld ziet er hetzelfde uit als Campus Ruiselede en heeft ook die hoge hekken (recent nog bijgeplaatst rond het sportveld). Ook geen gevangenis. Evenmin als een andere gesloten jeugdinstelling met hoge hekken als Gemeenschapsinstelling De Kempen campus De Hutten in Mol. 
Mijn gebruikt criterium voor gevangenis kan discutabel zoals in het geval van gesloten asielcentra, zie https://dofi.ibz.be/nl/themes/irregular-stay/detention/wat-zijn-de-verschillen-tussen-gesloten-centra-en-gevangenissen maar bij gemeenschapsinstellingen gaat het om jongeren, min 18-jarigen en dat is nog iets anders.
joost schouppe (2025-07-28 07:40:24+00:00): Hoi Eebie,
Ik zeg duidelijk niet dat ik je aanpassing fout vind, maar enkel dat het het onmogelijk maakt om het als een gesloten instelling terug te vinden. Wat is je criterium nu precies? Enkel klassieke federale gevangenissen zijn amenity=prison? Want dan zou je deze zes ook nog moeten aanpassen: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/28DQ 
De gesloten asielcentra heb ik allemaal op prison=rejected_asylum_seekers gezet; vind je dat dan ook fout?
Voor mij is het belangrijk dat de tagging stabiel is en uniek filterbaar, omdat ik deze data nodig heb voor het Nationaal Crisiscentrum; de precieze waarden maken me echter niet veel uit. Misschien is het beter dat je je standpunt eens op het forum voorstelt, zodat we tot een consensus komen en die als Belgian convention kunnen documenteren?
habi (2025-05-19 08:22:29+00:00): Ciao Parelius
Du hast hier Velos an der Aaare als 'verboten' markiert.
Dieser Teil war letzten Sommer explizit für Velos erlaubt, was ich mit `bicycle=designated` erfasst habe.
Stimmt das so nicht mehr?
Gruss,
habi
parelius (2025-05-19 09:14:24+00:00): Hallo habi

Das Befahren des Wegs war temporär erlaubt, da die Haupverbindung von der Gürbe her saniert wurde (ist inzwischen erledigt).
Im Grundsatz ist dieses Auengebiet den Fussgängern vorbehalten.

Gruss Parelius
habi (2025-05-20 19:59:37+00:00): OK, danke für die Klarstellung und Korrektur.
parelius (2025-05-21 12:31:43+00:00): Kein Problem. Ich habe mich gestern nochmals vergewissert, dass das Verbot wirklich signalisiert ist.
Aber der Anlass meiner Korrektur war ja eigentlich ein positiver: die Auguetbrücke ist jetzt für Velos geöffnet. Ich hoffe, du hast das bemerkt…
habi (2025-05-23 09:57:20+00:00): > die Auguetbrücke ist jetzt für Velos geöffnet. 

Das habe ich gesehen, und war der Grund, dass ich dein Changeset hier angeschaut habe.

Ein anderer User hat viele Veloberechtigungen in der Gegend geändert (siehe Diskussion hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164668898 )
Auch wenn hier viel mit dem Velo befahren werden kann, sollte die gültige "Rechtslage" in OpenStreetMap erfasst werden :)
dcapillae (2025-05-15 19:10:52+00:00): Los cruces ya no coinciden con las imágenes del PNOA. Se han actualizado tras revisión sobre el terreno y a partir de la nota OSM número 4759135.
eggie (2025-05-15 20:10:50+00:00): Dag Matthew   Je hebt name=Etos en shop= verwijderd, maar de rest van de winkelinfo laten staan. Je commentaar is edit, maar wat is nu je bedoeling?
Bestaat die winkel niet meer?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-05-15 20:13:44+00:00): https://www.reclamefolder.nl/winkels/etos/vestigingen/de-huesmolen-154-hoorn/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.nl%2F&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.nl%2F
Профі (2025-05-17 12:28:28+00:00): крутяк
EneaSuper (2025-05-16 10:59:13+00:00): Grazie mille per questa modifica, mi ero completamente dimenticato di farla sistemare ❤️
Baloo Uriza (2025-05-15 21:13:47+00:00): "South" and "Avenue" shouldn't be abbreviated when tagging addresses.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166321724
Sylabowy Kot (2025-05-17 12:39:11+00:00): Please do not do it this way again! You've changed only a two nodes but just take a look at the distance between them. People don't like such a big changeset area. iD editor is great for a single changes and you could do it in a smaller areas.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-05-16 08:10:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 166337033 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some admin level changes.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18188 and links from there
mcliquid (2025-05-19 07:37:56+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
Hypsometric (2025-05-19 17:18:49+00:00): Thanks for the info and link. I didn't realize there were reviewers working in that way. I just did a somewhat large one. But will try to keep them smaller from now on.
hNdrX_ (2025-05-15 22:52:48+00:00): Hej Rainer, ich habe mir deine Bearbeitung angeschaut: sieht soweit gut aus - und Hut ab, dass du sogar telefonisch recherchiert hast! Einige Kleinigkeiten sind mir noch aufgefallen:
hNdrX_ (2025-05-15 22:53:03+00:00): 1) Du hast den Point-of-Interest (POI) gleich neben einem anderen gesetzt (Crystal Home Collection) - ist der noch vorhanden oder hat "KLIMA" dieses Geschäft ersetzt? Dann könnte der POI gelöscht werden.
2) Hausnummer 41 scheint mir nicht korrekt - Ort des Geschäfts befindet sich zwischen Haus-Nr. 43 und 44 - bitte nochmal prüfen. (gerade weil es keine offizielle, verlässliche Eintragung auf der Homepage gibt).
3) Eigenschaften des POI: Du hast Sozialeinrichtung (amenity=social_facility) gewählt und als Unterkategorie social_facility=office. Dieser tag ist veraltet und sollte nicht mehr benutzt werden. Diese Info findest du auf den zugehörigen Hilfe-/Dokumentations-Seiten. Ich würde social_facility=ambulatory_care vorschlagen. Der Firmen-Name reicht dann denke ich aus, um klarzumachen, welche Dienstleistung angeboten wird.
4) Betreiber ist in dem Fall "Joachim Klima" - manchmal ist es auch eine GmbH oder ähnliche Gesellschaft - steht meistens im Impressum, wer der Betreiber=verantwortliche Leiter ist.
5) Telefon-Nummer: gibt es auch eine Format-Vorlage: +<Landesvorwahl> <Bereichsvorwahl> <Rufnummer> - hier +49 531 68033441 (Leerzeichen sollen nur hinter Ländervorwahl und Ortsvorwahl gesetzt werden - zur besseren Übersicht)

Gruß, Hendrik   //
RainerBielefeld (2025-05-16 06:49:32+00:00): Hallo Hendrik, danke für Rückmeldung, Deine Verbesserungsvorschläge finde ich plausibel. Recherche zu "Crystal Home Collection" läuft noch, wenn ich da ein Ergebnis habe arbeite ich das alles zusammen ein.
hNdrX_ (2025-05-16 15:06:43+00:00): Gerne! Und danke Dir auch für die gründliche Recherchearbeit. Klingt gut - weiter so ;)
Glassman (2025-05-16 19:44:48+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166322986
SafwatHalaby (2025-05-16 12:49:23+00:00): Added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4249535
SafwatHalaby (2025-05-16 12:49:51+00:00): Typo. I meant to say, this resolves https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4249535
Glassman (2025-05-16 19:45:09+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166323340
SpinOff (2025-06-07 22:27:22+00:00): Dlaczego przeniosłeś przystanek autobusowy na środek rzeki?
jtracey (2025-05-23 21:07:09+00:00): I reverted this changeset; the + at the start is part of the phone number, as per E.164. Please see the wiki for details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone
marczoutendijk (2026-04-05 13:42:43+00:00): Here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849440750#map=16/52.10150/-106.73299&layers=N
you are using landuse=municipial which is a typo for municipal.
But even that is not mentioned in the wiki as a valid value for landuse, but government=municpal is!
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:government
Maybe you should change this?

Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
MuzikMachine (2026-04-13 23:24:07+00:00): I made the change to industrial with government=municipal.

Cheers!
A67-A67 (2025-05-15 21:37:01+00:00): Hoi, 
Het punt met de naam "Afslag 7 voor richting Helmond, Woensel, Tongelre, 0-2500" was incorrect. De tekst van borden worden op de way zelf getagd en dat was hier al gedaan:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/139630771
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-15 21:11:00+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12840744781
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1235781339

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
todeveni (2025-05-29 13:47:12+00:00): Pyyntö, ettei maastopyöräillä pitkoksilla, ei ole pyöräilykielto.

Jokamiehenoikeuksien kieltämiselle tulee olla laillinen perustelu. Pyyntö kaupungin nettisivuilla ei ole tälläinen. Letonniemen luonnonsuojelualueen säännöissä kieltäminen olisi pätevä kielto. Ja säännöt/kielto tulisi ehdottomasti olla myös näkyvillä maastossa.
kupteri (2025-05-29 15:46:53+00:00): No kyllähän tosta on jappasua ollut ja paikalla olevissa ohjeissakin tuo sanotaan. Onhan tuo vielä suojelualuettakin että teoriassa sen voisi ihan kieltämällä kieltää. Mutta minusta aina parempi ettei tonne ehdoin tahdoin johdateta pyöräilijöitä. Epämukavaakin pyöräillä noilla pitkoksilla kun tuonne menee vaihtoehtona soraistettu pätkä ja maastompikin reitti.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10160353745674678&set=p.10160353745674678&type=3
todeveni (2025-05-30 05:31:53+00:00): Juu, ymmärrän kyllä pointin. Mutta OSM:ssa ei tule kieltää pyöräilyä, jos se ei ole kiellettyä.
Pyöräilykieltojen asettaminen, jotta joku reititysohjelma valitsee "paremman" reitin on vähintään kyseenalaista.
Pyöräilyn kieltäminen (tai jokaisenoikeuksien rajoittaminen) tulee aina perustua lakiin. Laminoidut kehoitukset välttämään pyöräilyä tai Facebookissa Kalevien ränttäys ei tätä ole.
kupteri (2025-05-30 19:42:28+00:00): Jep jep. Joo luin lisää kaikenlaista että pitäisi tosiaan olla ihan liikennemerkit. Kaupunki on toivonut että ei pyöräilyä ja sillä siellä laminaattia on ollut. Onhan tolle toiveelle oma tägikin. Poistan tuolta ton bicycle=no.
ZeLonewolf (2025-06-14 18:58:45+00:00): Please join the discussion on these edits at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/religious-administration-boundaries-in-the-united-states/131400
mycota (2026-02-13 21:31:35+00:00): The building names at Mesa Community College should not have been removed. These are the official names, which are visible on campus maps and on the buildings themselves. Please revert your changes so that the buildings can be identified properly. https://www.mesacc.edu/maps/southern-dobson-campus/
Hypsometric (2026-02-14 13:48:57+00:00): Thanks for the info. I was able to confirm and update name=* and ref=* for many buildings. The name was completely removed before since it did not seem reliable. It did not follow the correct naming convention described in the wiki for name=*, specifically under "Name is name only". Many of the names were descriptive. For example "Library LB 11" which was updated to the buildings name (i.e. Paul A. Elsner Library). With the info you provided I was also able to confirm the reference number (i.e. LB 11). I also see you recently added Mapillary imagery here. Thank you for that! That also helped me confirm many buildings ref=*. Some were not mapped before.

The info you linked to seems to confirm that many are descriptive names rather than an actual name of a building. But I have updated some with a name again. Some names on the site are the subject taught there, some are multiple offices within a building. A few are the actual name (e.g. Paul A. Elsner Library). A good example of how the "names" on that site are mainly descriptive is the one named "Vacant". But I was able to confirm from that site and with Mapillary that the building should have ref=26. The building number is on the side of the building like you said.

I'll take another look to see if there are any others I can update. If you have any questions, please take a look at name=* and ref=* in the wiki and let me know. Feel free to message me directly.
jhaluska80 (2025-05-17 03:24:43+00:00): Word of advice.

Don't split up parking lots into a bunch of tiny parking lots.  If you were going out out of the building you'd think "These 5 spots are a parking lot?"  No, you'd think the big rectangular section is one continuous parking lot.  Sometimes there are "Lot A" and "Lot B" that should be split.

It makes it easier to tag ownership, renders a bit better, and in GPS systems it won't show up a 5 different parking lots.

You can turn parking lots into MP (multi polygons) if you really want to pull out components that you don't like, like the island/separators.  You can also map individual parking spaces but I recommend doing that in JOSM with the gridify plugin.

Yes, OSM gets into a lot of tedious debates about what noun means and you'll run into classification debates like this constantly.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-05-17 03:40:48+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18221
Boris Verkhovskiy (2025-06-01 20:14:47+00:00): Can you revert the edits?

This is all bad for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166275060
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-04 01:32:11+00:00): I thought all the bad edits had already been reverted by other mappers? I'll fix that one, but are there any others? If so, please send us a list by e-mail to data@osmfoundation.org quoting: Ticket#2025051710000055. Thanks!
kabelhaai (2025-05-23 09:20:12+00:00): Note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4735355
bigboss (2025-05-29 12:14:37+00:00): You were deleting a street-tag (highway=trunk) in Otta. Greetings
Glassman (2025-05-16 19:45:27+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166324728
i2004 (2025-05-16 01:33:40+00:00): https://x.com/CiudadDeBondis/status/1923188376590541099
Glassman (2025-05-16 19:46:09+00:00): I probably would have tagged the building as retail since it has a retail like business
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166325007
Glassman (2025-05-16 19:46:25+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166325314
Glassman (2025-05-16 19:43:55+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.

I would recommend merging the shop node with the building outline since they seem to be business run in the building. The rest of your edits look good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166325402
Glassman (2025-05-16 19:47:09+00:00): #TIP: street names are spelled out in OSM. The reason is that software has a hard time unabbreviating
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166325404
limes11 (2025-07-06 12:07:32+00:00): Hallo, 

du hast hier vor 2 Monaten ein amenity=childcare erfasst, 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4840941

was nach Aussage des Eigentümers seit Jahren nicht mehr existiert.

Woher stammt der Eintrag ? Gibt es vor Ort noch Spuren ? Falsche Adresse ?

Vielen Dank
acidyellow (2025-07-08 22:56:33+00:00): Hallo!
Danke für den Hinweis. Da ist noch ein Schild an der Straßenecke. Am Gebäude selbst ist aber nichts zu sehen. Ich habe den Eintrag jetzt entfernt.
NeisBot (2025-05-17 15:10:16+00:00): Hi QuaaludeEnjoyer, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 96% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 4 highway(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=166325909
Alexey Lukin (2025-05-16 02:12:03+00:00): The tunnels are not fully restored here, they have too many curves/bends. The platform shape is distorted, with pylons not being parallel with the station or tunnels. Inter-tunnel distance differs from the correct 25400 mm and the platform width differs from the correct 22500 mm. Escalators have incorrect lengths, which also affects the placement of the station. The eastern escalators should be 12.5 m longer (in the plan/projection) than the western escalators.
felipeeugenio (2025-05-16 13:45:41+00:00): Hello Lars. Most of the houses are very well drawn, but there are some that are not even close to be drawn depicting the actual house. The bigger one and the block with full whole houses. the internal spaces are clearly visible.

regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166326050
Lars_TheViking (2025-05-16 22:58:36+00:00): Hi felipeeugenio, 

Thank you for reaching out about this. We recently started mapping the buildings here and are working to outline them as best as possible.  It can be difficult to determine the exact footprint for some buildings using only aerial imagery, but we will make sure to look for the internal spaces and exclude them. 

Have a great day!
felipeeugenio (2025-05-16 23:28:25+00:00): Thank you very much

Regards
Roydon Olive (2025-05-16 07:44:44+00:00): According to https://data.winnipeg.ca/Transportation-Planning-Traffic-Management/Cycling-Network-Map/e9ms-78q6 these are indeed cycle paths near the bridge, I've gone ahead and fixed the map.
Jetcotd (2025-05-16 12:19:13+00:00): Just because they are part of the bicycle network doesn't mean it is not a sidewalk. At that point the way is parallel to the road, and there is no separation between uses. I can understand the confusion as Winnipegs bike infrastructure is confusing. Are you mapping based on maps or from personal experience?
Roydon Olive (2025-05-17 01:01:17+00:00): Hmm, being parallel to the road and separation (or lack there of) doesn't have any effect on whether it is a sidewalk or multiuse path as far as I am aware. The link to the city of Winnipeg website I sent above clearly shows that it is a multiuse path. So "cycle & foot path" seems to be the correct feature type for this.
Jetcotd (2025-05-18 02:13:17+00:00): A sidewalk can be a multiuse path. Colloquially the residents of Charleswood wood refer to this section as a sidewalk until the path splits off. I could see the distinction being where the concrete turns to asphalt at the steps, though. I frequent this space on both bike and foot. I would assume you are mapping based on satellite imagery if you do not know this? I will go ahead and revert the feature type to the proper designation. The correct way also conforms with the current feature type of multiuse paths that cross bridges in multiple places in the city such as portage/omands and the maryland bridge.

See the mapping standards below:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map
Roydon Olive (2025-05-18 04:50:49+00:00): The people of the city that I talk to refer to this section as a multiuse path. The material (concrete) that it is made out of has no effect what modes are allowed to use the path (for example the multiuse path along Jubilee is made out of concrete). I also frequent the space both on bike and foot and by vehicle. The multiuse path on the west side of the Maryland Bridge is a cycle + foot path on osm right now (I haven't touched it), so what you said is incorrect. As for portage and omands the last edit to that was 9 years ago, likely before that section was designated a multi-use path so pointing out a section of the map that needs to be updated provides nothing to your argument. I read the two pages that you linked but I don't see anything that supports your argument in them, would you care to point out the specific sections in them that support you?

You've changed the type to sidewalk, but the city page I linked clearly says that bicycles are allowed, and so the access type for bicycles of "not designated" is clearly incorrect.