way/335515923 is not one-way.

Hi - I recently visited that area and saw that you tagged individual trees. There are 1000's of trees around there, any reason why you chose those ones? I am just curious....

I came across this way on a bike ride which was not on the map and I just rode along it for a few meters. I don't know where it continues.

Thanks FajrAI - this is a useful suggestion, and I am aware that many contributors assume that an unpaved road must be a track. On the other hand, I noticed that many contributors in Bali tag a way as "residential", only because it passes a few houses. However, if the way passes through an agricultural area (such as rice fields) where most users are farmers looking after the fields, the tag "track" might be appropriate, showing the main use being agricultural. You will not find many ways in highly populated Bali where there are no houses, but that does not mean it is residential. What do you think?

Changing tag "Living Street" with a width of 1m to "Path". Anything not wide enough for a four-wheel-vehicle (3 mtrs) should be a path.

Converting the tag "living street" to paths. A general feature of living streets is that the legislation grants pedestrians higher or equal right of way over other road users. This condition is not met in this case, it is too narrow to be a road.

Thanks Lakedistrict! I saw that old wooden signpost on the East side of the river and there is definitely a path going down to the river bank where it ends. But nobody crosses the river here and the river bank on the other side is very overgrown.

Yes, I might do that, use the disused tag. Where the path should merge the road on the West side, there is a guard rail and a dense hedge, I cannot imagine that anybody has crawled through there for a long time. I also use STRAVA Heatmap overlay in OSM which provides a good indication of the popularity of a way - in this case zero.

I see your point. However, I am afraid that navigation apps will still show there is a way - which is a nuisance for 99% of users. Is OSM not based on what you see on the ground? There is definitely no footpath. Maybe it can be tagged as "historical"? What is your take on this?

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

All these alleyways ("gang" in Indonesia) are too narrow for a four-wheeled vehicle to pass and should be tagged as a path, not a street.

Note that generally, OpenStreetMap encourages information to be verifiable on the ground. Proposed features that are not visible on the ground should therefore only be mapped in exceptional cases and after a discussion with the relevant OSM community, lest they might be deleted for lack of verifiability.

Please let me know whether the source is available and a discussion with OSM Indonesia has taken place. Otherwise, it would be better to delete this feature. Thanks

Planned roads are not objects that can be seen on the ground, so the source of the data must be specified each time. This can be the source=* tag on the object or in the changeset. Note that generally, OpenStreetMap encourages information to be verifiable on the ground. Proposed features that are not visible on the ground should therefore only be mapped in exceptional cases and after a discussion with the relevant OSM community, lest they might be deleted for lack of verifiability

Hi James
I am right now in Galicia contemplating to take my MTB on the Transcantábrica route. I did quite a bit of research, reading the different blogs etc. and will continue checking the conditions on the ground. I understand this route was put together by an individual years ago and is not signposted in any way. There are few people taking it (what I can see on Strava Heatmap) - so I wonder whether it should be marked as a route on OSM. The guideline states that routes should be signed (signposted?) - this one is not. As a user, I feel misled thinking this is an officially sanctioned route, maintained etc. What are your thoughts? Thanks for the great work you are doing, quite impressive!

way/1227523864 cannot be a "living street" because it is only one metre wide and therefore it has to be a path. Do you mind if I change your tag to path? I am actually living here in the neighborhood. Thanks for contributing to OSM.

To give you an example what I mean with clutter, just look at way/725759528 and all the "residential tags" in its vicinity.