Hi,

Thank you for sharing the criteria you use. I agree with you for the most part, and think they're very reasonable and well-presented.

I do still have some thoughts on this exact case:

I agree that I wouldn't map a pedestrian street with kerb-less sidewalks as more than one separate way. On the other hand, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with doing so, and if someone else had mapped out the sidewalks separately, I would hesitate to remove them. Same goes for segregated pedestrian and bicycle paths, even if there's no physical barrier between them.

Looking around on OSM there are several instances where this is the case. Some examples around Stockholm include e.g. Barkarbyvägen and nearby streets, Birger Jarlsgatan, and Sankt Eriksgatan north of Kungsholmen. In Iceland, the standard has been to always map separate ways, even when there is only a painted line (assuming that the bicycle part of path has two distinct lanes).

Taking Sankt Eriksgatan as an example, there are some sections where the paths are separated by a kerb, but large sections only have different surfaces. That being said, it could be argued that the nature of the path doesn't change - kerb or no kerb, there is still one distinct bicycle path and one distinct pedestrian path. Whether or not it "is" one path or two is more of a subjective question in this case, and I don't think either way of mapping is necessarily more or less correct than the other. In such a case, I would perhaps not map them out separately myself, but I would always leave separately mapped paths in place if they show more detail than can be captured by a single way. These details could include marked crossings (as you mentioned with oneways, these might not be stricly "real" in a legal sense, but are followed by many bicyclists and pedestrians), slightly different geometries, sparse obstacles between the paths, etc. I can see the appeal of reducing the complexity of the mapped paths and agree that there is a balance to be struck between mapping in full detail on one hand and having a reasonable and maintainable database and end product on the other hand; in this case, I would see the separate mapping as providing useful detail, rather than being just clutter.

Seeing as the surrounding streets around Tulegatan all have the paths mapped separately, I would suggest keeping them so for now. If there is a consensus in the future to map all of these sorts of paths consistently as a single way, I would welcome that change.

Does this sound reasonable?