One remark about the surface= tag. It is often considered the panacea to distinguish cyclable paths and others.

If I look at paths (I use the word with its vague meaning) I know I find several examples where the surface= tag is misleading.

(1) I know several paths with surface=concrete where cycling is downright dangerous. They run through fields, are fairly narrow and there is, usually at one side, a difference in level with the ground of 20 cm or more. Going over the edge means a certain fall.

(2) surface =asphalt. Width: fairly narrow but enough to cycle. Unfortunately: they run between walls or hedges and there are straight angles.

(3) I know a few surface=dirt which are as pleasant as asphalt, even after prolonged periods of heavy rain.

Examples like this make that I have far more confidence in the judgment of a mapper than in a set of physical tags to show me where the real “woosh” of a cycleway is. Experience shows that there is a margin of error there, but that the good cycleways will always will end up with woosh=yes, the definitely useless ones will all be tagged woosh=no, and the ones in between can go both ways, either being a somewhat disappointing woosh=yes or an I-could-cycle-here-but-it’s-far-from-ideal woosh=no.