Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12018-03-26 16:59:38 UTCAdamant1 Hi there. Is there a reason you decided to add the note as a point - FIXME instead of using the note system? Because I think it has more of a chance of getting reviewed using the system. Plus notes are not really geographical features. So they really shouldn't be displayed on the map like it is.
22018-03-26 18:45:45 UTCstevea A very good suggestion! I've now added a Note with the same text; thank you. SteveA
12018-02-11 02:02:39 UTCglebius Hi! I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. At least it doesn't reach that treacherous path that both of us hiked. Do you mind if I delete it, or at least shorten it, so that it doesn't reach the path?
22018-02-11 02:07:17 UTCstevea Well, I recall that segment as "finding my way back across some other people's private property" and I was simply blazing a trail back to "a road, any road" so that I could find my way back to Long Ridge Road.


32018-02-11 02:17:16 UTCglebius Thanks!
42018-02-11 02:26:37 UTCstevea Maybe I was armchair mapping from a satellite or heat map or county records, my source of that segment might be hazy. My work in OSM has improved over the last five years, I'll say. The tagging changes and evolves, too.

I do respect private property and signage as I see it when hiking or biking...
12018-02-11 01:32:23 UTCglebius Hi!

Just saw your old comment: "Glebius, why on earth you saw the need to add motorcar=no to a highway=path is totally beyond me. How superfluous! I have actually hiked this treacherous path, and added sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, a much more appropriate and helpful tag."

22018-02-11 01:46:43 UTCstevea Some very nice people live there, they opened up their land to me and whispered about paths into Demo. What I literally stumbled across, I documented. What you found you documented!

I think it's cool we do this mapping. We do this on public land, a public forest, actually, which is a sort of a...
12017-12-29 11:33:49 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Steve,
Just wondering about the leisure=park tag on here - I'm not convinced that it really is a "leisure=park" in the laid-out-parkland sense that's described at . I'll admit it's a few years since I've been here, but I'd be surpri...
22017-12-30 00:32:18 UTCstevea It's a good question, Andy, and it's nice to text with you in near real-time (I am a fan of your edits, you are dedicated!).

What you are asking is at an edge of history in OSM as a project: in this part of California circa 2008-2010, this is how large parks were imported into this part of Calif...
12017-12-09 19:16:04 UTCmueschel Hi,
these edits introduced several strange tags on 14 objects:
SHAPESTAre \t9.218000289160156E7
SHAPESTLen \t84464.43847961596
Zoning \tTP

Could you check & fix this?
Thanks, Jan
22017-12-09 21:13:00 UTCstevea No fixes necessary, they are part of an "official" (local government) import, now in its third revision since the initial 2009 v1 import.

32017-12-09 21:14:55 UTCstevea As has become the custom over the years as our attitudes and conventions towards imports changes (and improves), these tags will be reduced or removed altogether in the v4 update to these data, anticipated in 2019 or 2020. As per the "Multipolygonization" discussion on talk-us in November...
42017-12-09 21:38:18 UTCmueschel The tags I mentioned are new to OSM, not used before. And they are not mentioned on your Wiki page as well.
52017-12-09 21:46:40 UTCstevea Yes, SHAPE_STAr and SHAPE_STLe are mentioned in the wiki. Look, this is an eight-year old import with data that are carefully curated, documented and promised to not only be updated (with v4) but also improved with the next version (via multipolygonization). In the initial import (messy as documen...
12017-10-03 13:11:39 UTCHubMiner Hi, I wanted to link this route 37 to something official, but didn't see anything online except this
Do you have any other references?
22017-10-03 18:28:50 UTCstevea Yes, I used the Illinois Department of Transportation's application to AASHTO. It is a nine page document with maps and route descriptors (turns and lengths). I can send it to you if as an attachment if you give me an email address. -SteveA
32017-10-05 02:34:31 UTCHubMiner Hi, I was hoping for something online. Perhaps a Wikipedia page will get created one. Thanks for getting back!
42017-10-05 03:07:33 UTCstevea Try here:

and click the USBR 37 IL link.

Cheers, SteveA.
52017-10-05 13:07:18 UTCHubMiner I double you want me to link OSM to your private Dropbox... :) Any change you want to create a wiki page for the route, based on docs you have?
62017-10-05 17:44:06 UTCstevea By "double" I think you mean "doubt" and by "change" do you mean "chance?"

I might suggest you download the doc which I generously point you to and do whatever you need to do with it.

I believe my part of helping you is complete.
72017-10-05 20:12:08 UTCstevea BTW, there is a wiki page for the whole USBRS (system), where each route is listed. There are no links to the "originating documentation" for (AASHTO) approved routes, but there are links for the ballots for the routes that are proposed at any given time.

82017-10-12 01:43:20 UTCHubMiner Hi, thanks again for proving the info. I reviewed the documents and the wiki osm page. Unfortunately I don't feel I have enough historical and high general info to put together a wikipedia page myself. Perhaps something will become available at a later time. Thanks for your help.
92017-10-12 01:49:10 UTCstevea You are welcome. Although I don't quite understand what it is that you are either missing or that you require to further complete whatever it is that you are trying to do.
12017-08-25 08:59:09 UTCGerdP Hi!
I've noticed that you sometime use
highway=driveway instead of highway=service + service=driveway
Is this intended?
22017-08-25 18:31:50 UTCstevea Whoops, no. Thank you for catching this! Of course, I'm perfectly OK with any correction that you might make to this. As well, I'll look out for any other, similar mistakes I have made and correct them.
12017-08-23 20:57:52 UTCmuralito It's ok to be boundary=administrative and not have admin_level=*?

Should'nt it be boundary="stastistical" or other user defined value?
22017-08-23 21:11:26 UTCstevea It's a bit complicated. If you haven't already, please see our wikis for both United_States_admin_level (especially cite_note=49) and WikiProject_United_States/Boundaries (especially the USMOI note in Notable exceptions).

As far as admin_level needing to be "something," as noted in the...
12017-08-07 07:19:48 UTCoormilavinod hey stevea!! welcome to OSM. I observed that you have pulled a road causing bad angled roads. please make sure you be little more careful while making edits. I have corrected the errors happy mapping !!
22017-08-07 15:36:13 UTCstevea hey, oormilavinod. I appreciate your welcome, though I've been an OSMer for most of the project (>8 years), I was named Mapper of the Month earlier this year, and presented talks at SOTM-US conferences in 2014 and 2016.

What road, exactly did I "pull?" I am usually quite careful wh...
32017-08-07 16:36:39 UTCiandees Steve, if you look at the changeset via OSMCha (likely the tool that oormilavinod was looking at), you'll see that there's an "impossible angle" tag on the changeset: I suspect they thought you created it, when in fact you just modified the wa...
42017-08-07 17:31:08 UTCstevea Ian, please check your "missives Inbox."
52017-08-08 03:49:11 UTCoormilavinod hey stevea thanks for getting back iandees is right, i went by the OSMcha that flags the impossible angle. now i understand that the tags were the only ones that was modified by you . I shall look into the history more carefully now. thanks for bringing this to my attention. nice to know about you...
62017-08-08 18:25:47 UTCstevea Thanks for everybody's good communication here. They do put erasers on the ends of pencils, as we all make little errors now and then! (Don't sweat the small stuff; it's all small stuff). Happy mapping to you as well, stevea
12017-08-08 17:47:36 UTCstevea Oops, used an old changeset comment. It should be "Meadows SW of Gilroy."
12017-07-04 21:05:30 UTCMinh Nguyen While “CHP Officer John Pedro Memorial Highway” may be signposted in a few spots, it isn’t signposted prominently or frequently enough for general usage. Changeset 50044505 moves it to the official_name tag and restores “Cabrillo Highway”, which is the legislatively def...
22017-07-05 08:49:25 UTCstevea Really, Minh? OK, if you think this is more correct. Are you sure you're not checking on many of or all my edits since 2009? I do live here and see the signs (I was just driving this stretch of highway TODAY), but if you want to "localize" this and call the whole stretch Cabrillo Highwa...
32017-07-05 09:09:57 UTCMinh Nguyen Haha, no, I’m not stalking you! :-D A coworker of mine pointed out how the Mapbox Navigation SDK was trying to say, “Continue on CA 1, CHP Officer John Pedro Memorial Highway, for 14 miles”. It took almost 7 seconds to say this mouthful, and the corresponding label in the UI shrank...
42017-07-05 09:32:26 UTCstevea So, am I understanding you to say is that tagging what the signs say is "wrong" (or less right than"on the ground verifiable") and that what the name tag SHOULD say for corporate consumers of OSM data (like Mapbox and Foursquare...) is what corporate consumers of OSM data like Ma...
52017-07-05 10:15:02 UTCMinh Nguyen No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Just to be clear, I believe we’re talking about these signs:

As opposed to these signs, which I think do call for using the name tag:
62017-07-05 10:19:41 UTCMinh Nguyen Incidentally, the Mapbox Navigation SDK is open source, and so is the routing software that powers it:

I understand that it’d be inappropriate to tailor our mapping to any particular router, b...
72017-07-05 18:37:09 UTCstevea Thanks for the detailed explanation, Minh, though I believe you walk a very fine line here.
12017-03-20 19:29:53 UTCuser_5359 Hello! What is the meaning of your different ways only marked with name=Sandhills? Please see
22017-03-20 19:39:51 UTCstevea These are a unique-to-the-area geological formation of rock/sand which give rise to the frequent quarries in the area (many largely "played out" and now closed). In the middle Miocene epoch (about 15 million years ago) this area was underwater/ocean and today these areas are often part of...
32017-03-20 19:49:34 UTCuser_5359 Did you read
42017-03-20 19:56:26 UTCstevea Many times, but there are no values for that key which seem appropriate. It may be time to "coin" one (make one up). However, it is so local and unique, that I have been reluctant to do this.

You might do a Google search on "Santa Cruz sandhills" or look at http://www.santac...
52017-03-20 20:15:22 UTCuser_5359 I see some similarities with a dune. Did you know the Dune of Pilat (, )?

The parts with fossils can be marked with
62017-03-20 20:27:10 UTCstevea Thank you, although these are much more geologically and biologically rich than a simple sand dune. They are a wholly unique feature on the landscape. Some of them actually are protected within boundary=protected_area, protect_class=1a, 6 or 7, however, when they fall upon private property (as the...
72017-03-20 20:38:03 UTCstevea Now I believe that geological=outcrop might be about right, but it's still pretty rough.
82017-03-20 20:49:54 UTCstevea I have added geological=outcrop to these data, along with a FIXME tag which describes them as rough and needing additional refinement. Thank you for your help!
12017-03-10 09:27:28 UTCmueschel Hi,
You uploaded a huge sset of objects, which are mainly tagged with foreign tags which most likely should not appear in Osm. Could you check and correct this?

ACCESS_TYP=Open Access
AGNCY_NAME=Scotts Valley, City...
22017-03-10 17:34:49 UTCstevea I wouldn't say "huge" as it is a few dozen edits over the course of a few hours in a single day (and I'm not done yet) against the over 12,000 edits I have entered over the last eight years.

Is your problem with "foreign tags?" I kept these in to distinguish these CPAD polygo...
32017-03-10 17:56:39 UTCmueschel I didn't complain about the import of the polygons as such. That's fine if it is done carefully.
I'd suggest to keep one ref tag only, like ref:CPAD. This should be sufficient to allow for future updates.

Other tags like ACRES and COUNTY are just redundant because they can easily be retrieved f...
42017-03-10 18:06:41 UTCstevea Thank you for your quick reply. I can certainly endeavor to reduce and/or conflate tags on future CPAD polygon entries, as I do agree that they do contain a large amount of metadata. Some is useful and some is not (to OSM) and as long as a polygon in OSM can be identified as mapping back to a uniq...
12016-08-11 00:13:52 UTCschleuss Whoo!
22016-08-11 00:37:31 UTCstevea Hey, come on, it's just a stub of the old Anaheim to Santa Ana branch from the 1870s-1880s. A lot of the rest has been "subsumed" by I-5 and I'm trying to get California rail to be more complete. You're kidding, right?! (Choo!)
12016-04-22 09:04:28 UTCRichard It shouldn't really be either, tbh! Nowhere else in the world is a mountain bike route tagged as route=bicycle - that's what route=mtb is for.

I've pretty much given up arguing this one but I wish at least people could agree on a static (albeit wrong) network/ref combination - I've now got to spe...
12015-06-23 14:36:34 UTCmstriewe This changeset added "bicycle=shoulder" to some highways, which is used nowhere else. Did you mean "cycleway=shoulder" instead (see
22015-06-23 18:26:32 UTCstevea OK, I believe I have changed all bicycle=shoulder tags to cycleway=shoulder.
32016-03-28 17:46:02 UTCElliottPlack Steve, a question about the US 340 / MD 67 Interchange. MD SHA specifically prohibits bicycles on this section of US 340. Does the USBR trump that prohibition, or perhaps could the SHA data not be up to date? I am working with SHA bike planners on building a signed, numbered, state-wide bicycle netw...
12015-08-11 18:29:45 UTCmaxerickson Are the duplicate overlapping sections of the Jefferson City Subdivision here an accident or unfinished work? One end of it here, continues for some ways:
22015-08-11 18:59:24 UTCstevea It seems to be an accident. I welcome any corrections you or anybody else more familiar than I am with the Jefferson City Subdivision can offer.
32015-08-11 19:55:31 UTCmaxerickson I don't have any specific knowledge of the area, JOSM flagged the duplicate ways.

There are double tracks visible for at least some of the way and someone had started aligning the duplicates with the second track, so I wasn't sure if there was a plan or what:
42015-08-12 00:59:58 UTCstevea To which someone do you refer?
52015-08-12 01:04:39 UTCstevea g246020?
62015-08-12 02:08:52 UTCmaxerickson Yeah, that's what I meant.
72016-01-06 21:12:44 UTCmaxerickson Hi Steve, this changeset did indeed introduce quite a few duplicated railway=rail. Maybe you could take some time and delete some of them?

I'm deleting a few right now, it's pretty tedious to carefully go through and delete the railway that is not a member of the relation while making sure not to...
82016-01-06 21:45:21 UTCstevea Max, I don't know how I can help. It might have been g246020 who did this, and much less likely, it might have been me. I am seriously busy on other tasks this week. Perhaps I could take a look at the relation and tracks this weekend (January 9-10, 2016). I'll try to leave another comment here, ...
92016-01-06 22:07:26 UTCmaxerickson The ways I have been deleting are (some of) the 'v1' ways listed below. I got here by looking up what changeset they were created in prior to deleting them. There's no question who created them.

Anyway, I contacted you based on the presumption that you cared about the relation being sane (I see y...
12015-06-20 04:24:54 UTCjremillard admin_level=4 on ? State parts are not administrative boundaries?
22015-06-20 06:28:40 UTCstevea This was an old-fashioned way of tagging way back when (circa 2009 when the CASIL and Santa Cruz County GIS imports happened). I agree with you (now, 2015) that it is incorrect to put admin_level=4 on a State Park and so I have removed that tag.
12015-04-26 05:23:56 UTCMinh Nguyen I undid some of these changes in changeset 30491130. railway=construction construction=tram_stop is a well-used and well-documented way of indicating that a subway station is under construction. The name=* tag is not intended for descriptive text, even in parentheses.
22015-04-26 16:08:00 UTCstevea Of course, Minh: thank you for your corrections and especially for documenting here the correct way to tag this so I know how to do this if/as I find such construction in the future.
12015-03-25 20:27:30 UTCemacsen While this information is true (most of the NE corridor tracks) allow for speeds about 120mph, not all do. I know because I was just on Acella a few days ago on this very route and sometimes we were going >100mph, and then in the middle of the journey, we dropped to ~30mph, around bends and popul...
22015-03-26 01:53:29 UTCemacsen Steve, you sent me an email, but I want to keep all conversations public. Please specify the source for where you say that these track ways are high speed compatible. Based on my experience, some are and some aren't.
32015-03-26 02:07:04 UTCemacsen In addition to Amtrak, you're also saying that some Metro-North rails are high speed. Please tell me where you can tell which rails are being replaced with high speed capable rails, because I haven't heard that they've completed that renovation universally. In other words. So what is your source?
42015-03-26 02:13:37 UTCstevea Hello Serge:

The "infrastructure on rail" tag of "highspeed=yes" is documented as widely used on the OpenRailwayMap (ORM) wiki here: It says "Is this line a high-speed line (with permissible speeds greater...
52015-03-26 03:57:45 UTCemacsen Steve,

I'd request that you please stick to the discussion at hand, which is the issue of the track data.

I'd also ask that you please keep a civil tone and not use condescending language, such as telling someone to "relax".

To the substance of your email, as you say, the tag is f...
62015-03-26 05:54:24 UTCstevea Serge, the discussion at hand is: Amtrak says Acela uses the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak says Acela is highspeed. I have put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4: the tracks of the NEC are highspeed, because they support highspeed service, exactly as the tag is documented.

There are different t...
72015-03-26 17:20:59 UTCstevea Addressing Serge's specific request to "correct (my) tagging on...which track segments are high speed and which aren't," I continue to assert that ALL of the track segments of NEC are high speed. Again, this particular tag (highspeed=yes) is a correct answer to the semantic of the tag: &...
82015-04-01 04:47:33 UTCRussNelson Serge, Amtrak says that it's a high speed route, so ... it IS a high speed route. If you know how Amtrak signs the NEC speeds, you should tell the rest of us, because I don't know.
92015-04-01 10:04:16 UTCemacsen Russ, the issue is that individual tracks are tagged as high speed, not a single route. That indicates to me that the tracks must therefore be high speed capable, and many are not.
102015-04-01 19:23:17 UTCstevea Serge, individual tracks are tagged this way because that is how the tag is documented: it means the LINE of which this rail segment is a member is capable of supporting high speed route=train service. So, it is correct. (I repeat myself here, not a good sign).

Are there individual track segme...
112015-04-01 20:46:58 UTCemacsen Steve, if you want a route to have a specific tag, that's fine, use a relation and apply the tag to that route as a whole.

By tagging each way, you are saying "This track is high speed capable", which isn't true for some of these ways. I don't know which tracks are high speed capable an...
122015-04-01 21:01:17 UTCpnorman That Amtrak wants to upgrade the track makes it pretty clear to me that not all of it is high speed, and the limit on portions is not high speed. The UK is probably the best place to look for how this is tagged, as there's plenty of segments of track which are not high speed capable.

If there is ...
132015-04-01 21:13:41 UTCwoodpeck Wikipedia says that "Much of the [NEC] is built for speeds higher than the 79 mph (127 km/h) allowed on many U.S. tracks." - this implies that some of the NEC is not usable at high speed. I wonder how, in SteveA's understanding, these should be tagged? Surely it must be possible ...
142015-04-01 21:57:31 UTCstevea To Paul's comment: Amtrak's "upgrades" are intended to make an already-exists high speed line into an EVEN HIGHER speed line.

To Frederick's comments: a "more correct" way to capture that certain segments of rail have a limiting speed is with a maxspeed tag. I welcome these...
152015-04-02 09:06:54 UTCNakaner Up to now, there has not been reached any consensus among the railway mappers where to tag highspeed=yes and where not. There is one debate what the minimum speed should be (> 160 km/h, >= 160 km/h oder >= 200 km/h) or if there should be any world-wide minimum speed. For comparison, althoug...
162015-04-07 18:02:44 UTCstevea And there you have it from one of the authors (and a true rail expert from an OSM tagging perspective): "there has not been reached any consensus." What this says to me is that we have a bit of a tempest in a teapot here. Especially as other lines (in Europe, Asia) are tagged as I have ...
172015-04-07 18:12:33 UTCemacsen > signifying that track segment is part of a high speed line.

There's no evidence of that from what I read.

> To show my continuing good faith and hopefully to assuage the situation somewhat

Why don't you just do what everyone can agree is correct, and tag the route, rather than the i...
182015-04-07 18:29:29 UTCstevea The route (Acela Express, route=train) already is marked high speed, with the service=high_speed tag. This is precisely how ORM tagging instructions say it should be done. The tag is not applied (again, exactly as instructed) to the route=railway (NEC) relation. This is because ORM's tagging sect...
192015-04-07 18:40:27 UTCwoodpeck What is the practical use of a railway track marked highspeed=yes when this duplicates information from a relation? Is OpenRailwayMap unable to make the link between the relation and the track? -- Your maxspeed argument misses the point. If a road is tagged maxspeed=65 then I can legally go at 65 un...
202015-04-07 19:04:53 UTCstevea Yes, as Nakaner (and ORM tagging) document, ORM truly IS unable to "make the link between" (render) the relation, UNLESS the track is so tagged.

AGAIN, (I repeat) AS IT IS DOCUMENTED, the "highspeed=yes" tag literally means: "Is this line a high-speed line?" Emphas...
212015-04-07 19:12:07 UTCNakaner I suggest following temporary compromise between you as long as there has been no consensus about highspeed=yes found: highspeed=yes may only be tagged on those tracks which can be used with a speed greater than 100 mph (160 km/h). The usage of highspeed=yes on relations is not affected by this comp...
222015-04-07 19:14:58 UTCNakaner I think that argueing here a longer time will not lead us to a consensus. It will only cost valueable time of each of us. Please continue this debate either at ORM or Tagging mailing list. (Tagging is suitable in this case because it is not a topic where people have to have much knowledge about sign...
232015-04-08 02:43:10 UTCstevea It isn't too far a stretch to say NEC is "somewhere between orange and red." Subtle, huh, yeah, I know. As we best know how to tag.
242015-04-09 00:40:40 UTCstevea In changeset 30077144, I have deprecated the highspeed=yes tags from all NEC segments. However, previous changesets have set maxspeed= tags. As a net result, on segments where maxspeed>=160, highspeed=yes is "back" to being set. These segments include the great majority of the NEC, a...
252015-04-10 16:55:22 UTCstevea OpenRailwayMap's Infrastructure and Maxspeed styles now render these changes accurately. I consider this resolved.
12015-03-25 21:37:06 UTCemacsen This is another changeset with a source that doesn't really make sense to me. Where is the source for these changesets? Is there a URL or other public source?
22015-03-26 02:15:09 UTCstevea OK, Caltrain publishes web pages and printed schedules that say Gilroy is a station on the Baby Bullet line.

If you would like one, here it is:

If you would like me to endeavor to be quite exact with web links and exact publication names...
12015-01-18 22:45:33 UTCNakaner Is "(proposed)" really part of the name? It should be tagged proposed:railway=station + name=Sonoma County Airport.
12015-01-18 22:44:07 UTCNakaner "Union Pacific Railroad" is not the name of the railway line, it is the operator, isn't it? That's why I think that name=Union Pacific Railroad should be moved to operator=Union Pacific Railroad.
Best regards, Michael (one of the OpenRailwayMap ...
23 changeset(s) created by stevea have been discussed with a total of 102 comment(s)