| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50420007 by stevea @ 2017-07-20 00:22 | 1 | 2025-06-08 04:08 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | Thanks for a good laugh, 8 years later... |
| 2 | 2025-06-08 22:13 | stevea | I suppose that since Cody is now tagged boundary=census that Alta and Jackson Hole "should" be as well? (And done, if so, I think). Can anybody confirm or actually do or might Brian or I do so? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-10 00:11 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | At the moment, the Cody relation doesn't even have a name tag, which is why it came up on my list. | |
| 9338533 by stevea @ 2011-09-19 00:41 | 1 | 2025-04-18 09:47 | os-emmer ♦337 | Hello stevea,I have some questions about buildings you added 13 years ago:https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4715581Can you help me with this? |
| 2 | 2025-04-18 15:32 | stevea | The reason these are not seen in a particular image is because they are seasonal. Somewhere around May-September, these are erected as temporary structures and staffed with lifeguards during the busy summer beach season. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-18 15:42 | os-emmer ♦337 | Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. I just updated the tagging for these lifeguard-stations and added an seasonal=summer.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165118574 | |
| 4 | 2025-04-18 16:01 | stevea | 👍 | |
| 151792332 by stevea @ 2024-05-25 01:37 | 1 | 2024-05-25 11:10 | telcodude ♦230 | I would change it from permissive to permit required. Not a US citizen, military police won't allow you through by yourself. must get permit to traverse through the base.https://www.pendleton.marines.mil/Main-Menu/Base-Access/Recreational-Bicycling/ |
| 2 | 2024-05-25 18:18 | stevea | Thank you very much; done (with your link included) | |
| 149111740 by stevea @ 2024-03-25 02:41 | 1 | 2024-03-26 14:18 | neuhausr ♦331 | I see you wrote on the wiki page this is "determined by consensus" to be quasi-national. What consensus was this? |
| 2 | 2024-03-26 17:19 | stevea | A changeset comment might be terse to write all this: let's use the Talk page on United States Bicycle Routes wiki. Briefly, this was tagged ncn, I did some research into NSBs / All-American Roads and because of the (national-level) US Secretary of Transportation's designation of these (... | |
| 134648884 by stevea @ 2023-04-08 11:36 | 1 | 2024-03-12 01:21 | crushtheserpent ♦10 | Hi Steve, there a number of errors in your edits. These three communities (Universal City, Franklin Canyon, & East Los Angeles) are unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, thus they should be tagged admin_level=9 with boundary=administrative. Additionally, it's best to remove the place=... |
| 2 | 2024-03-12 01:27 | stevea | Where is the "administrative boundary" of any "unincorporated community" defined? (I mean, strictly?)If you say it is a (US Department of Commerce) Census Boundary, that's OK, but those are tagged with boundary=census.By wide OSM community consensus, unincorporated ... | |
| 146051534 by stevea @ 2024-01-09 05:12 | 1 | 2024-02-24 22:38 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | Oh nice, I was worried I’d have to start a whole discussion about doing this, but you took care of it already.Are you sure boundary=political is the best tag for the counties? As I understand it, that tag is for things like congressional districts and electoral wards, which so far we&rsquo... |
| 2 | 2024-02-25 01:56 | stevea | I am not sure boundary=political is best, it is a dart on the board, and not on the bullseye. It may be boundary=historic works, this is all very liquid. I think this needs a wider discussion medium than the narrow bandwidth of a changeset comment. I welcome a new topic in the USA section of our ... | |
| 3 | 2024-02-27 07:17 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-counties-and-planning-regions-in-connecticut/109799 | |
| 63627926 by stevea @ 2018-10-17 23:48 | 1 | 2024-01-29 20:09 | BPTT ♦83 | Hello! Can you tell me about the RRA bicycle route you created? What does RRA stand for, and where can I learn more about it? I don't see it anywhere at https://www.nj.gov/transportation/commuter/bike/guide.shtm |
| 2 | 2024-01-29 20:15 | stevea | See our wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Jersey/Cycle_Route_Relations .Although, I don't recall adding RRA. It might have been that I "touched" this (RRA) relation as I was working on a USBR, 9-11 Trail or the ECG through here. "RRA" seems like something ... | |
| 3 | 2024-01-29 20:16 | stevea | Ah, it was added over 5 years ago by Valustaides via Changeset #63245538. | |
| 4 | 2024-01-29 20:18 | BPTT ♦83 | Ah cheers - sorry about that! | |
| 5 | 2024-01-29 20:20 | BPTT ♦83 | It doesn't look like user Valustaides has been active in about a year. I thought it was you who added the RRA reference initials. I wonder if we should remove it since it can't be corroborated. What do you think? | |
| 6 | 2024-01-29 20:21 | stevea | Taking a look at certain things...stand by. | |
| 7 | 2024-01-29 20:26 | stevea | Yeah, seeing this is barely a kilometer long, it doesn't seem like a "route," although it may certainly be a km or so of bicycle infrastructure. So the way should remain in OSM, but yeah, the relation should be deleted. (It's a mess, as it's both network=lcn, "l"... | |
| 8 | 2024-01-29 20:28 | stevea | BTW, if you are working on these, might I ask you to also do your best to keep that wiki page synced with your efforts? It's really nice when the wiki chasing the map chasing the wiki chasing the map chasing the wiki finally "settle down" and more-or-less reflect one another. | |
| 9 | 2024-01-29 20:30 | BPTT ♦83 | Definitely! This is the first I've seen the NJ Cycle Route Relations page and I'm happy to contribute. I mapped the Pine Barrens River Ramble and Burlington County Bikeways routes last week, for instance. Thanks again! | |
| 10 | 2024-01-29 20:36 | stevea | 👍 | |
| 26034749 by stevea @ 2014-10-12 20:32 | 1 | 2024-01-01 05:37 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,041 | What do you mean by shop=children ?Please respond/review the below note:https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3813006 |
| 137736083 by stevea @ 2023-06-24 21:45 | 1 | 2023-06-25 00:27 | Glassman ♦5,219 | I'm going to be in Winthrop in early July. Is there anything I can do to help? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137736083 |
| 2 | 2023-06-25 00:49 | stevea | Wow, Mr. S., you are Johnny-on-it! It was only a few hours ago I exchanged email with Kerry Irons (ACA, USBRS architect) about this and he now has an agenda item (autumn round?) to ask WSDOT about these three "parallel" segments on USBR 10 if they are possible "alt" or "bel... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-25 02:52 | Glassman ♦5,219 | Good to hear from you as well. And yes, Methow Valley should be great - except if we have wildfires. Then not so much. We've been there a number of times and love it. However, because it's so expensive to live there the businesses have a hard time hiring help. The help can't afford th... | |
| 4 | 2023-06-25 03:36 | stevea | A kind offer re WSDOT contacts. This is in a sort of "cold storage holding pattern" for now, so let's see what Kerry uncovers later in the year.Enjoy all that beauty out there! | |
| 136563534 by stevea @ 2023-05-26 01:00 | 1 | 2023-06-01 12:50 | Benjamin Muller ♦5 | Could not find any source for this proposed international bikeway. Not in any official local, regional, state, or national documentation. |
| 2 | 2023-06-01 22:41 | stevea | Picachu25 (its original author) writes me in OSM-missive:"International Bikeway 80 is no longer top priority in my project, feel free to delete it if you can. I have been trying to myself, but I am somewhat new to OpenStreetMap, so I am unsure of a quick way to do that."...OK, ... | |
| 136189293 by stevea @ 2023-05-17 00:11 | 1 | 2023-05-17 01:06 | oba510 ♦256 | https://www.ucsc.edu/about/address.htmlI see a comma here? I would be surprised if UCSC formatted their name differently from the other UC campuses, which follow the "University of California, [Place]" format. |
| 2 | 2023-05-17 01:18 | stevea | I'm an alumnus and local, though specifically remember this from decades ago. It is entirely possible this got changed in 40+ years and the comma is truly present. If all other campuses include a comma, that is hefty support UCSC should, too.Though, your link points to the mailing address... | |
| 3 | 2023-05-17 01:21 | stevea | Putting the comma back, you are correct. I found https://policy.ucop.edu/_files/da/2-26-99name.html which says there were changes in the late '50s and '60s and a clarification in 1999 that says all campuses use the comma. | |
| 4 | 2023-05-17 01:37 | stevea | Thanks oba510, been to Berkeley many times, you do great work in OSM. I recall Y2K and how in 1999 people (especially software and data-oriented people) were dotting Is and crossing Ts. UCSC having a comma seems to have slipped right passed me as the Regents published that letter via UCOP. Good ca... | |
| 134399336 by stevea @ 2023-04-02 01:24 | 1 | 2023-04-20 14:53 | willkmis ♦173 | Hey stevea,In this changeset, it looks like you changed the city label for Murrieta to "Mahogany Hills", instead of adding the existing Mahogany Hills suburb node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2990321549) to the relation. Was this an accident, or is there some other reason?Best,\... |
| 2 | 2023-04-20 16:17 | stevea | Yes, I messed this up FURTHER after it was messed up to begin with. Mahogany Hills is now a place=suburb (as it is within Murrieta's city limits) and Murrieta is now correct, I believe. Some subtle tagging required, and if we don't get it correct in two steps, how about three?!Thanks... | |
| 3 | 2023-04-20 19:50 | stevea | It may also be possible this needs a fourth revision. If you (willkmis) believe there is a tagging scheme (with the nodes, the ways, the suburb and the relation) superior to the way I have done it currently, you are welcome to improve it from here. And perhaps we can all learn something about the ... | |
| 4 | 2023-04-23 17:49 | willkmis ♦173 | Ha, all I saw is that the Murrieta label had disappeared from the map, which looks fixed now. These sorts of boundaries are certainly messy, so I don't think I see a specific improvement I'd make. Good work, and thanks for fixing! | |
| 5 | 2023-04-23 20:10 | stevea | 👍 | |
| 89386052 by stevea @ 2020-08-14 05:12 | 1 | 2023-04-18 21:57 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | You missed some of the ways |
| 2 | 2023-04-18 22:16 | stevea | Sometimes when I was a boy I'd sweep the garage and my father said "you missed a spot." And he was right.Is there something specific you like me to do or have you completed the task to mutual satisfaction?Thanks for all you do! | |
| 3 | 2023-04-19 00:36 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | I removed it.I think if you right click on a relation you can select all members. That way everything gets deleted. | |
| 4 | 2023-04-19 00:40 | stevea | Yes, I believe that is true using a particular editor, and it's quite possible I wasn't or don't often use that particular editor. Especially when I'm deleting / redacting (noise, bad data), I'm often more careful not to delete everything, or I "delete overcautiously&q... | |
| 5136244 by stevea @ 2010-07-04 19:18 | 1 | 2023-03-26 14:24 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,627 | Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3613873 ? |
| 2 | 2023-03-26 21:52 | stevea | Fixed | |
| 44860356 by stevea @ 2017-01-03 02:02 | 1 | 2023-02-28 20:30 | arvdk ♦302 | Hi Stevea, I hope you are doing well. I just came here to drop a quick message to inform/ask about a new mapper in this area, deleting mayor elements, once added by you. Could you verify if this is all OK?Kind regards from Europe :)https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133144928 |
| 2 | 2023-02-28 21:03 | stevea | Thank you for noticing and contacting me. What this new user:xxxxxxxxxxxxxa is doing is not OK. While I haven't done so yet, I plan on redacting the changeset so the Port Mackenzie Rail Extension is restored and notifying the DWG to keep an eye open for this potential or actual Vandalism offe... | |
| 3 | 2023-02-28 21:20 | stevea | DWG has been notified. | |
| 4 | 2023-03-01 04:29 | stevea | I have corrected elements in this changeset so they are even more correct than they were before this vandal took them out. And, DWG has slapped a block on user:xx.xa.Thanks for good teamwork everyone, arvdk and DWG alike. | |
| 48463732 by stevea @ 2017-05-06 23:39 | 1 | 2023-02-26 15:18 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | It seems like this might be a misplaced duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150965543. I know it's a long time ago, but do you happen to recall the source for the location of this node for Jamacha? |
| 2 | 2023-02-26 20:25 | stevea | I don't recall "exactly" although the answer is partly from my childhood a half-century ago. Dropping a pin on a nearly blank placemat was a bit difficult even six years ago, it was "sparse" here.Because it was a rough guess, I'd agree with you if it were to move S... | |
| 3 | 2023-02-26 20:41 | stevea | The fact that Meadowbrook connects to Skyline is how "Jamacha" ties together in my mind. So, from Meadowbrook Drive (as the connection to Skyline, to knit together south) "further West" on Jamacha Road, past its terminus named that, onto Lisbon Street for that westerly bit that ... | |
| 4 | 2023-02-26 21:29 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | I came across this because I was looking more closely at Jamacha, and strangely, the GNIS record for Jamacho (https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/243992), and I just happened to come across this node.The location for the other Jamacha (n150965543) is at the exact coord... | |
| 5 | 2023-02-26 21:33 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | If you know some of the history of the area, I wonder what you might make of the name "Jamacho," which is in GNIS and present on old USGS Topo maps. Maybe it's a USGS typo (or alternate spelling) that we've kept around for 60 years? | |
| 6 | 2023-02-26 21:52 | stevea | I think Jamacho is "something" and may be a real place-name while also specifying something I recall from fifty-something years ago in my childhood with that as the name of the place, even though the road ends in an a. I/we nearly always SAID it ending with an A because we were talking ab... | |
| 7 | 2023-02-26 22:02 | stevea | Here's what I consider. I might trim the existing landuse=residential so it more accurately fits the "up to the edge of the San Diego City Limit" and migrate tags from this node to that polygon.I might add in a second landuse=residential polygon just to the north (what got trimme... | |
| 8 | 2023-02-26 22:02 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | I guess if you think that this node is referring to something different than the other Jamacha node, we should keep both of them. I don't have strong feelings about where the nodes should be located. But merging the tags into landuse=residential areas does make sense. | |
| 9 | 2023-02-26 22:05 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Digging a bit more on "Jamacho," it seems that this was an alternate spelling. GNIS has historical records of "Jamacao," "Jamacha," and "Jamacho" all referring to the same Mexican land grant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Jamacha | |
| 10 | 2023-02-26 22:07 | stevea | Yes, the "something different" is the residential area (now in OSM), I think it should have the tags of the node named Jamacha, as it is a "neighborhood of San Diego, roughly cut with this landuse=residential, which now contains tags identifying it as such."And this can wobbl... | |
| 11 | 2023-02-26 22:12 | stevea | We crossed each other.Um, yeah, now that you mention it, this is "a corner of" (a pretty complex one!) of that Mexican land grant. The name gets mangled a lot.I was once talking to a "411" operator and I almost knew the address she was going to give me was on Jamacha (pr... | |
| 12 | 2023-02-26 22:26 | stevea | So, this node, here, gets wrapped around the landuse=residential polygon, which is trimmed to fit into its corner of the San Diego city limit, excluding Lemon Grove areas. I think that's right.What I don't know about is the "other" Jamacha node, over by Steele Canyon / Cotto... | |
| 13 | 2023-02-26 22:50 | stevea | OK, the "tag migration" and node deletion) inside of the city limits of San Diego is done (changeset/133061971).As for the other node near Cottonwood, if you were to change its name to Jamacho, I would nod my head. | |
| 14 | 2023-02-27 00:43 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Thanks for making the change! As for the other "Jamacha" over by Cottonwood, I'm pretty satisfied that it has the right name in the right place. There's some good documentation to support it, and I think I've seen signs while I was going by on Jamul Dr.As for "Jamac... | |
| 15 | 2023-02-27 00:50 | stevea | You and OSM are welcome. In Hungarian "köszönjük (nekünk)" which is "thanks to us." I like your call on the other node. I'm smiling, I'm nodding, a wave and a handshake from here. | |
| 129690514 by stevea @ 2022-12-03 22:15 | 1 | 2022-12-21 01:51 | Joseph R P ♦340 | Why exactly were these seemingly random sections of motorway downgraded to trunk? Streetview shows that the state-recognized freeway portions end by the first at-grade intersections with the freeway terminus signs. |
| 2 | 2022-12-21 01:57 | stevea | It's not random at all. It is a deliberate building of specific tagging because bicycles are allowed through here explicitly.What you say about what "Streetview shows" is unclear: WHICH state-recognized freeway portions, WHICH "first at-grade intersections with the freeway ... | |
| 3 | 2022-12-21 01:59 | stevea | To be clear, bicycles are allowed on SR 58 west of CR 66 (West Main Street Lenwood) all the way west on SR 58 to (and beyond) US 395. How far west? To the Kern-San Bernardino County Line. Caltrans says so. | |
| 4 | 2022-12-21 02:18 | stevea | While this might "appear to be" what OSM calls motorway (freeway in "what the locals might call it") it is technically an expressway that allows bicycles, and so cannot legally be a "freeway" as California defines one. This means "really must not be tagged motorwa... | |
| 5 | 2022-12-22 00:12 | Joseph R P ♦340 | The sections of motorway that were downgraded to trunk in the changesets you made are designated as freeways by the state. There are signs that say "Begin/End freeway" depending on the direct you are heading, at, for instance, Wagner Road (however the definition of a freeway in the real wo... | |
| 6 | 2022-12-22 00:16 | stevea | I think we are agreeing to agree. It does remain "somewhat unclear" — better stated is likely "inconsistently applied in OSM in California" where these "bicycles on freeways" are allowed. For example, even further west (on 58) towards Bakersfield, there are &quo... | |
| 7 | 2022-12-22 00:48 | stevea | I'm all ears about things like Begin Freeway and/or End Freeway signs (you say at Wagner road but not which direction is what). I mean, if you were clear about exactly where Caltrans has placed signs about "Limited access freeway" and/or Begin/End Freeway on 58 from the traffic_signa... | |
| 8 | 2022-12-22 00:49 | Joseph R P ♦340 | On another related note, it appears some freeway ramps were changed from motorway links to trunk links despite connecting to motorways:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49010840https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086982355https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158976805https://www.openstre... | |
| 9 | 2022-12-22 00:50 | Joseph R P ♦340 | (Sorry for the out-of-place response, we wrote ours at the same time) | |
| 10 | 2022-12-22 00:52 | stevea | No apologies necessary, we're both clearly in good-faith comm together here.Yes, those trunk_links do appear "just plain wrong." Please allow me a few minutes to fix those; thanks for the heads-up and identifying those for me; so kind of you.Yup, we're skipping over each... | |
| 11 | 2022-12-22 01:06 | stevea | OK, those four (and their environs) now have what-I-believe-is-correct motorway_link tagging, not trunk_link tagging. Again, thank you.Let's pause for a moment re "bicycle tagging on freeways." That's a larger topic and I neither want to get "lost in the weeds" (o... | |
| 127538594 by stevea @ 2022-10-14 18:04 | 1 | 2022-11-08 14:43 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,please check this area, it has no valid tags:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1103914353and please check the spelling of your sccgis keys. You used all of these:sccgis:shapearesccgis:shapeareasccgis:shape_area |
| 128201911 by stevea @ 2022-10-29 08:51 | 1 | 2022-10-29 20:04 | willkmis ♦173 | Hi stevea,The portion of the K Line south of Westchester/Veterans is still under construction, it won't open for another year or two. That is why I left the construction tags on this portion when I removed them from the newly opened segment, between Expo and Westchester. See https://kline.met... |
| 2 | 2022-10-29 23:50 | stevea | Sorry about that, Will. I saw both the Wikipedia article and the kline.metro.net site that said the K Line was open, but I got it wrong that it was "the whole route" (instead of only the northern half).I think I got the tags right, but if I didn't, please let me know or you might... | |
| 3 | 2022-10-29 23:53 | stevea | Also, our wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Railroads/Passenger#Los_Angeles_County_Metropolitan_Transportation_Authority_/_LACMTA_/_MTA_/_Metro_(LACM) ) was what I was updating...these should stay synced with reality and what's in the map, too (of course).Thanks for the a... | |
| 4 | 2022-10-30 02:55 | willkmis ♦173 | No problem! Metro's promotional material definitely minimized the fact that only part of the extension was opening. Your fix to the routes (for posterity, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128229922) look good, I also re-added construction: prefixes to the unfinished stops and platforms i... | |
| 5 | 2022-10-30 02:58 | stevea | Whoops, yeah, thanks, the platforms...the platforms.Good thing we're a team.This (K and C) are kinda goopy, I'm looking at it still like if it needs a bandage until the next change, as there will be along here. | |
| 6 | 2022-10-30 03:06 | willkmis ♦173 | A very minor detail that I just edited on the wiki page: the new K Line does not officially have any parenthetical in its name [like (Pink) or (Crenshaw) or something] like all the other lines. You can see the contrast in e.g. Metro's official schedules: https://www.metro.net/riding/schedules/.... | |
| 7 | 2022-10-30 03:09 | stevea | Good to know. They've been playing around with this morphology and it makes sense they'd break away with Pink. I once read Metro considers colors "secondary" route markers. | |
| 8 | 2022-10-30 03:09 | willkmis ♦173 | And yeah, things are pretty touch-and-go with Metro's service patterns right now, everything will look quite different in a few years. It'll certainly take many eyes to keep these relations hammered out! | |
| 9 | 2022-10-30 03:14 | stevea | Again, thanks. It's good to see a familiar name in it for the long-haul. Happy mapping, fist-bump, see ya on the taggings ahead. I might not always keep things synced, though I offer my best.Metro is on a tear, especially with what feels like "a sprint to the Olympics." There ... | |
| 59960783 by stevea @ 2018-06-19 00:39 | 1 | 2022-09-14 20:53 | TheOutpost ♦26 | There are some strange looking orphan powerlines in this changeset. Should we delete the powerlines? |
| 2 | 2022-09-14 21:24 | stevea | I agree they are "orphan," as they might not connect fully, although I'm not sure why you call them strange.I'll sometimes add power lines if I can see them (using imagery, as I believe was the case with this edit), but I can't always see where / whether they connect up ... | |
| 3 | 2022-09-15 08:06 | TheOutpost ♦26 | That explanation makes sense to me!I’m a fellow Santa Cruz resident. I’m appreciative of all of the OSM work you’ve done, especially in the area. | |
| 4 | 2022-09-15 08:10 | stevea | I appreciate that! It's a labor of love, a wonderful hobby and a great way to "give back to the community." We seem to have a fair bit of "technical overlap" (I'm a former Apple, Adobe, SCO...employee). OSM is a great project to make friends; I've been meeting p... | |
| 24454706 by stevea @ 2014-07-31 01:56 | 1 | 2022-08-30 13:01 | skquinn ♦804 | Are you sure the width tags are correct? OSM default unit is meters, not feet. |
| 2 | 2022-08-30 17:30 | stevea | This was quite a while ago (8 years) and data were provided to me by a manager at the ECG Alliance itself.I do know that default values for width=* are in meters. However, I do not know which segments you refer to which may be in error. If you know or have better data, by all means, correct th... | |
| 69856137 by stevea @ 2019-05-03 18:13 | 1 | 2022-08-28 20:09 | kepivar ♦45 | Dear Steve,where is the documentation for this import? |
| 2 | 2022-08-28 20:12 | stevea | It's pretty complicated for an OSM beginner such as yourself, as it has a long and complex history:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landusewhere ongoing updates (after 13 years) continue to this day. | |
| 3 | 2022-08-28 21:56 | Allison P ♦1,136 | kepivar is almost certainly a sockpuppet of some experienced user. | |
| 4 | 2022-08-28 22:01 | stevea | I guessed as much; thank you Allison P for sharing your suspicion, allowing me to agree with your (more public) comment (here).I "entertain" such questions in the spirit of "openness" (OSM's first name), but I also realize that there is some possibility of "baiting&... | |
| 124952573 by stevea @ 2022-08-16 05:11 | 1 | 2022-08-16 07:16 | azakh-world ♦282 | Hello.I can't figure out why there are two stations and two platforms at Long Term Parking. Could you please review these objects and the stop_area relation(s)?Best regards,Alexey |
| 2 | 2022-08-16 07:26 | stevea | It's better, but t likely still not perfect | |
| 3 | 2022-08-16 07:35 | azakh-world ♦282 | I'd fix it myself if I knew what to do. PT preprocessor can't build routing data without stop_positions being connected to a station via stop_area relation. https://cdn.organicmaps.app/subway/usa.htmlPlease fix it or explain the intention of the changes. | |
| 4 | 2022-08-16 07:41 | stevea | Well, don't use "PT preprocessor." It isn't OSM, it's a tool that parses the syntax of PT tags. The intention of the changes was/is to include Long Term Parking, which was built infrastructure, but excluded from the route relation. (It only went as far as the Rental Car C... | |
| 5 | 2022-08-16 21:56 | stevea | I have improved this (blue route). I'll let it settle, as I'm now looking at red having only one route in the route_master is a warning that can be ignored. | |
| 6 | 2022-08-18 10:04 | azakh-world ♦282 | More nicer now, thanks. Though, I'm strongly convinced that a roundtrip route should contain a continuous cyclically closed rail sequence. Alas, I only could find a blurry mention of it here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_mattersNow the Blue Line rail members form a... | |
| 7 | 2022-08-18 19:31 | stevea | Have at it, friend. Building perfect PTv2 routes is both a goal and a process. While I strive for the former, I happily accept the latter, especially as it is "good and forward" (or as you say "more nicer now").Go ahead: continue to nudge this forward. Going from 98% to 9... | |
| 116257941 by stevea @ 2022-01-17 14:50 | 1 | 2022-04-22 15:35 | SherbetS ♦155 | hello stevea,on this objecthttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9425708112you used the tag man_made=communications_tower when in reality it is man_made=mast + tower:type=communication please use the correct tagging in the future. thanks, SherbetS |
| 2 | 2022-04-22 16:45 | stevea | OK, that's a subtle distinction, but I do appreciate that you've corrected me. | |
| 106680611 by stevea @ 2021-06-20 20:54 | 1 | 2022-02-15 06:07 | danfarina ♦4 | Did you mean to add that spring? I walked by in a dry February, I couldn't identify any spring and it was dry. |
| 2 | 2022-02-15 06:07 | danfarina ♦4 | Node n8851330566 | |
| 3 | 2022-02-15 06:09 | stevea | If it's dry, it's dry. You are welcome to delete it if it really isn't there any longer. | |
| 4 | 2022-02-15 06:11 | stevea | This whole area is like the swirling vortex of dirt where all the carpet sweepings of bad landuse/landcover/confusion come to live (and hopefully one day, die).Anything you can do to improve is helpful! | |
| 5 | 2022-02-15 06:12 | stevea | Well, of the South Bay, anyway! | |
| 6 | 2022-02-15 06:12 | danfarina ♦4 | Alright, I'll delete it. I flagged it as "intermittent," if you are sure that it sometimes pushes out of the earth (it looks like it's part of a stream or creek to me...) then maybe put it back. | |
| 7 | 2022-02-15 06:13 | stevea | It has a long history of lots of well-meaning mappers and one or two um, "less-qualified" mappers editing in this area and this is where it sort of ended in a big swirl of "whatever." It's a genuine mess from about Uvas Canyon County Park SE to about Mount Madonna Park.... | |
| 8 | 2022-02-15 06:14 | stevea | (And NE to about Uvas Reservoir). | |
| 9 | 2022-02-15 06:14 | danfarina ♦4 | If you check my history I've recently been going over some GPS traces and aerial photography with care. | |
| 10 | 2022-02-15 06:15 | stevea | Thanks for your great help. I'm an old hand at this, but I can't be everywhere in the map, nobody can. Many hands make light work!About that spring, again, if it isn't there now, delete it, if it is "seen again," it can be added again. The beauty of a plastic map! | |
| 11 | 2022-02-15 06:22 | danfarina ♦4 | alright, done that way. I checked for any mention of a spring (as an attraction or noteworthy feature) on the map or via web search, but there is none. Though it's not a common backpacking area, I figure it is best not to give false hope of water availability there. https://www.openstreetmap.... | |
| 12 | 2022-02-15 06:28 | stevea | And, I've been around long enough to know that sometimes springs move, especially after an earthquake. (New ones where they've never been before pop up after quakes, too) | |
| 116374863 by stevea @ 2022-01-20 08:52 | 1 | 2022-01-21 04:44 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Go Steve!! Solid work here. |
| 2 | 2022-01-21 04:46 | stevea | Thanks. We're getting there! | |
| 116406617 by stevea @ 2022-01-20 23:20 | 1 | 2022-01-21 03:36 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | Hello.Rather than deleting it, would be better to move it back where changeset 102283497 originally messed it up. 👍 --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116406617 |
| 2 | 2022-01-21 03:42 | stevea | Well, OK. In my zeal to correct the map, I'll say my deletion was correct and your admonishment to do more research and find where it actually belonged is "more correct." Thank you for doing the leg-work on this. | |
| 78833486 by stevea @ 2019-12-24 23:28 | 1 | 2022-01-15 03:42 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | This changeset was restored in changeset 116170303, but with additional traffic_sign nodes as justification so that hopefully it doesn’t get reverted again. |
| 2 | 2022-01-15 03:47 | stevea | If you say so. It's not too far from my house and I've driven it thousands of times, if there are new signs that "feather the edges" as you tag here, OK. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-15 03:49 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | Just to be clear, I changed things back to how you had them. Whoever came by later on must’ve ignored the note about the Begin/End Freeway signs that you were aligning the classifications to. | |
| 4 | 2022-01-15 03:52 | stevea | Ah, thanks for the clarification. | |
| 111732653 by stevea @ 2021-09-26 17:19 | 1 | 2022-01-13 16:04 | clay_c ♦489 | Hi Steve - I thought we had a discussion on this months ago. Shouldn't these ways remain `railway=rail` and not `railway=light_rail`? Light rail vehicles can travel on temporally restricted `railway=rail`, but freight trains can't travel on `railway=light_rail`. |
| 2 | 2022-01-13 21:03 | stevea | Taking a look over the next day or two. I believe you are correct: segments of Blue (and parts of Orange not currently so tagged?) between the Santa Fe Station and the new Mid-Coast addition (to UCSD, which are purely light_rail) likely ARE railway=rail, usage=branch. Thing is, I'm not sure ... | |
| 3 | 2022-01-13 21:28 | stevea | BTW, it's "trolley only" between Old Town and UCSD on the new Blue Line Extension, so that part for sure is properly tagged railway=rail. Are there specific segments (of Blue or Orange) you think should also be so tagged?(I'm sure none of Green should be, it's "all... | |
| 4 | 2022-01-13 21:35 | stevea | ORM being VERY slow to render right now hinders my progress here; I'll take a look this weekend. | |
| 5 | 2022-01-14 05:43 | stevea | OK, I think I've got this (mostly?) correct: the segments of Blue which are shared by SDIY are now tagged railway=rail + usage=branch + railway:traffic_mode=mixed. Also, the Blue route=railway relation has a note tag of "SDIY is an operator only on segments tagged rail:traffic_mode=mixed... | |
| 114682775 by stevea @ 2021-12-08 02:59 | 1 | 2021-12-11 21:26 | jleedev ♦299 | What is "GAP Temp" supposed to be? |
| 2 | 2021-12-11 22:12 | stevea | Whoops, thank you for catching this error of mine! It was a "holding container" for the Great Allegheny Passage trail portion in Pennsylvania. But I made an error with this and you caught it.I have corrected this by deleting the relation as some leftover elements during the creation ... | |
| 110824496 by stevea @ 2021-09-07 01:04 | 1 | 2021-09-07 09:27 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Hi,opposed to the local practices for equestrian, the OSM global practice is to split such widely apart changes, and just few in particular, in separate edit sets and saves. That way only the local mapping folk will see these changes in their history listing. Now you told everyone between the Ca... |
| 2 | 2021-09-07 09:38 | stevea | I appreciate that you reached out to me. Yes, my approximately 20,000 edits over 12 years means I AM an experienced editor.What happened here is that I was working on three equestrian routes that were quite local to me (within kilometers of each other) and while entering their relation numbers,... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-07 10:20 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | "Please learn to not pay attention to that"Yup, the teacher forgetting it's own lessons... a refresher course works too ;o) | |
| 4 | 2021-09-07 10:41 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | BTW, if you like stats, here are yours per the Pascal Neis reportiD editor: Resolved issues=113, Ignored warnings=341OSMI issues (details): routing=1997, tagging=1098, geometry=1Osmose issues: Level 1=819, Level 2=1153, Level 3=14211you've got the grand sum of 19000+ issues with whi... | |
| 5 | 2021-09-07 14:00 | OddlyAngled ♦100 | @stevea "that the relation IN the Ukraine didn't change" is incorrect, this changeset dropped the natural=wood tag from it. see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12412862/history perhaps you can fix the issue. | |
| 6 | 2021-09-07 14:29 | stevea | OddlyAngled, there is no "@" prefixing my name. Thank you for noticing my error that I dropped the natural=wood tag on a multipolygon. I have "fixed the issue."SekeRob, you sure are good at using tools to characterize what OSM Contributors do wrong — or so you and you... | |
| 7 | 2021-09-09 14:22 | Jarek 🚲 ♦321 | Hello all,I found this discussion while trying to quickly find out which edit might have broken Highway 401 routing near Mississauga Road. As you seem to be quite experienced OSM contributors, can you point me to a more reliable way of quickly checking the edit history of a area than the "H... | |
| 110469332 by stevea @ 2021-08-30 16:04 | 1 | 2021-09-07 10:06 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,could you check these ways? There are 3 that only contain foreign tags like this one:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/977932401 |
| 61840216 by stevea @ 2018-08-21 02:01 | 1 | 2021-07-28 14:04 | A Hall ♦53 | Curious what the OSM convention you're using to list these boundaries with a 'name', which is really just a description. I've been moving some of these out of 'name' and into 'notes', which seems more appropriate. There are certain renders I've seen w... |
| 2 | 2021-07-28 16:00 | stevea | Honestly (it WAS three years ago), I don't recall the specifics here. I vaguely recall examining these and might have found some "outliers" that didn't meet what seemed like "good naming conventions" so I likely decided to make them "at least good" (better th... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-28 17:16 | A Hall ♦53 | Great! Yeah, for other mappers who might find what's there as helpful, I will probably move things to the notes. Since I'm not aware of this boundary having any specific historical names (I'm thinking like the Mason-Dixon Line or the Twelve-Mile Circle), I think leaving the name field... | |
| 4 | 2021-07-28 18:57 | stevea | I do NOT think leaving the name field blank is best. The name field does correctly "name" these entities and it is used by many data consumers in OSM, like renderers, editors, "presenters" (e.g. in an "overlay" layer, clicking on a route or boundary might display the n... | |
| 5 | 2021-07-28 21:28 | A Hall ♦53 | You are by far the more experienced mapper, hence me reaching out. The changeset was labeled as 'OSM Convention' as justification for the edits, so I wanted to dig deeper into that. I was unable to identify anywhere that suggests that administrative boundaries NEED names, and since the nam... | |
| 6 | 2021-07-29 02:01 | stevea | Well, you say "rendered" and I know what you mean. But it might also be "displayed in a pop-up in an overlay layer" (for example) and it wouldn't be wrong to do that. If / as you move it from key name to key note or key description, yes, you are "being accurate" ... | |
| 108549948 by stevea @ 2021-07-25 00:30 | 1 | 2021-07-25 02:24 | Glassman ♦5,219 | Steve - I don't understand route=railway without either a railway or a razed railway. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108549948 |
| 2 | 2021-07-25 02:33 | stevea | Hi Clifford: Both relations in this changeset DO have rail elements: the NP Wahluke Branch has railway=disused elements and Lordsburg Sub is full of railway=rail. The two old relations were deleted (being replaced with these).What, exactly is the question? I'm happy to change something ... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-25 02:45 | Glassman ♦5,219 | Sorry - I didn't look at the way, just the relation. I see the razed way now. | |
| 4 | 2021-07-25 02:49 | stevea | Not a problem, they do put erasers on the ends of pencils; I have goofed up plenty of times! | |
| 108003134 by stevea @ 2021-07-14 21:53 | 1 | 2021-07-16 21:18 | skorasaurus ♦215 | hi steve, thanks for adding the USBR 21; that was a lot of work! I was concerned that the USBR 21 that you had mapped north of the cuyahoga river is incorrect; part of the road that USBR ends at is private (gated) and is for an industrial business... I biked this area earlier this week. I ... |
| 2 | 2021-07-16 21:22 | skorasaurus ♦215 | should correct be corrected as " I am assuming that perhaps USBR is supposed to on Whiskey island, which is north of the NS chicago line railroad tracks; there's a bridge that recently opened over the railroad tracks - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818563656 . There's also a d... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-16 21:29 | stevea | PLEASE change the USBR 21 relation to contain actual, better bicycle infrastructure along here. There are a lot of eyeballs looking at whether we're getting it right here, so, yeah, a local mapper who ride/rode it absolutely ROCKS at entering better route relation elements here. Yeah!Than... | |
| 4 | 2021-07-16 21:47 | stevea | OK, I think I got the Whiskey Island north end the way you describe (and so does ODOT's application to AASHTO now make better sense).However, any other parts, especially ones you recently biked in the last week, PLEASE, you are fully qualified to "fine tune" the route anywhere! | |
| 33257116 by stevea @ 2015-08-11 03:15 | 1 | 2021-06-19 10:03 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | Changeset 106625514 changes the speed limits back to mph, for consistency with the signs posted along the tracks. I’m unaware of any light rail system in the U.S. that posts speed limits in km/h. |
| 2 | 2021-06-19 23:49 | stevea | That's fine, Minh. This was an "old-fashioned" way I used to do things (while trying to adhere to OSM's international status and being "more metric") rather than the "entrenched by inertia" (and hundreds of years of practice) of US railroads being firmly entr... | |
| 44411652 by stevea @ 2016-12-15 00:38 | 1 | 2021-06-10 07:33 | JesseAKARaccoon ♦2 | Should this route really be here? This isn't a historical map, but a map of verifiable, present things. Parts of this railroad marked as "abandoned" in San Rafael have no physical presence whatsoever, and this route is clearly not used. It creates clutter on the map near many walkways... |
| 2 | 2021-06-10 08:17 | stevea | Yes, this route really should be here. (You asked).An abandoned railway is quite often a "verifiable, present thing." Some have physical presence, some have very little or none. However, if you read our wiki, you'll discover that rail tends to leave very long-lasting influences... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-14 08:43 | JesseAKARaccoon ♦2 | No, you're right, it was wrong of me to consider deleting it, and -- while I wouldn't have deleted it without getting *some* feedback on the idea -- the way in which I asked about it was hasty and dismissive.I apologize. I sometimes get a little too enthusiastic about making a map that... | |
| 4 | 2021-06-14 08:57 | JesseAKARaccoon ♦2 | I think part of my hastiness came from reading this at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway"Overall, mapping such features is acceptable where some remains like embankments, remains of bridges, etc., remain, even if rails are gone. In locations where the railway has been r... | |
| 5 | 2021-06-14 14:40 | stevea | I'm OK with railway=razed where that is a "more accurate" tag than railway=abandoned.But yes, you can see how it is easy to reach a conclusion that "OSM conventions" are absolute, when, at least in the case of "old rail," it's less clear. This HAS led to ... | |
| 100669691 by stevea @ 2021-03-09 03:12 | 1 | 2021-03-09 05:29 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | Hello! You added a bigger number of unknown tags in this change set. Please explain the source of this information and the meaning (!) of the keys.Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/914890246: |
| 2 | 2021-03-09 05:34 | stevea | Hello Georg. WHAT "unknown tags?" The tags on way/914890246 are documented on our county page, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California | |
| 3 | 2021-03-09 05:39 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | Only for example the page saysSHAPESTAre with SHAPESTLen (keys)\t|Keep|Change to sccgis:shapestare=* and sccgis:shapestlen=*, respectively, with the same values.Even if it sounds a bit nasty: if you already insist on a local rule, then stick to it. | |
| 4 | 2021-03-09 05:43 | stevea | There is an exception for SHAPE* keys. | |
| 5 | 2021-03-09 05:44 | stevea | Haven't you got something else to do? (Even if it sounds a bit nasty) | |
| 61837074 by stevea @ 2018-08-20 21:39 | 1 | 2021-01-21 19:07 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | way 296770514 is named "United States of America (Minor Outlying Islands);Kingman Reef". It is the sole member of relation 7248457 named "Kingman Reef" and also a member of relation 2185386 named "United States Minor Outlying Islands".Based on these relations being... |
| 2 | 2021-01-27 20:14 | stevea | The latter (semicolon converted to a comma-space) has been implemented on this and all other USMOI where there were semicolons. Thank you for the suggestion. | |
| 92256977 by stevea @ 2020-10-09 21:40 | 1 | 2020-12-27 19:41 | fudsnottica ♦6 | This is the five55 apartment buildings now: https://www.five55santacruz.com/. I was going to update the name and provide an address here, but I'm confused by the way this is currently tagged. Should it be both a building and a commercial landuse? If so, how should it be named? |
| 2 | 2020-12-27 20:13 | stevea | Please do make those changes; thank you in advance. I left the landuse=commercial tag here because of the "mixed use" I understood about the property as it was being developed. But now, I think the landuse=* tag should be removed altogether (on the building). I think the building should... | |
| 96031036 by stevea @ 2020-12-17 23:08 | 1 | 2020-12-19 16:44 | mueschel ♦6,565 | How many spellings of these tags do we need? Could you settle for one common one?Every one of these exists 1 to 3 times in OSM:sccgis:shape_lensccgis:shapestlensccgis:shapestlengthsccgis:shape_length |
| 2 | 2020-12-19 18:41 | stevea | Apologies, we need only one. Our Santa_Cruz_County,_California wiki documents that sccgis:shapestlen=* is the preferred key.I made some minor changes in one area, but an Overpass Turbo search does not show any incidence of the others. If you do find these, please describe their way # in OSM. | |
| 3 | 2020-12-19 18:57 | mueschel ♦6,565 | You might have missed relations, here are all of them:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11lL | |
| 4 | 2020-12-19 19:45 | stevea | Relation 12032585 is in Santa CLARA county, not Santa CRUZ county. I allow its tags to remain, as someone else in another county edited those and seems to have coined their own version, which at least partly explains the different tags you see. Contact user_5359 and complain to him or her about th... | |
| 30072212 by stevea @ 2015-04-08 19:17 | 1 | 2020-12-01 14:14 | JJJWegdam ♦137 | Hi Stevea,the source of your changeset is unfindable. Do you still have it somewhere? CheersBest regards,JJJWegdam |
| 2 | 2020-12-01 23:11 | stevea | Wow, it was five years ago I did that from a five-year-old source (now ten years old). Apologies, but that's a long time for anything to not turn into a dead link on the web and I don't have a good source for NE Corridor speed limits — it's actually a dataset I've been loo... | |
| 3 | 2020-12-01 23:46 | JJJWegdam ♦137 | I can imagine. No problem. I was simply interested, because I’m currently completing speed limits in Europe (for main lines) and I had nowhere else to go to.You might be interested in http://www.realtransit.org/nec7.php and http://www.realtransit.org/nec12.php. It can be used to create q... | |
| 4 | 2020-12-02 23:01 | clay_c ♦489 | I recently added milepost data to the Northeast Corridor based on FRA GIS data. I only added mileposts every 5 miles to save time, though the original data source has them for every mile if needed. | |
| 5 | 2020-12-02 23:22 | stevea | Nice, Clay! Thanks for the efforts. I frequently look for Northeast Corridor data to polish up so it's nice and shiny. NEC is North America's premier "gem" of rail infrastructure and the more OSM can do (tag, detail, finesse...) to show it off, the better! | |
| 84081624 by stevea @ 2020-04-24 21:03 | 1 | 2020-11-12 21:34 | joeybab3 ♦24 | Is the running track better tagged as a footpath than a running track? it would seem that leisure=track would be more appropriate for this way but if that is not correct, I'll leave it how you have it, I know sometimes the iD presets are disputed as to whether or not its the best way to tag. |
| 2 | 2020-11-12 22:05 | stevea | Hi Joey, if you'd like to tag this as a running track (it is one, after all), I encourage you to do so. I haven't researched what exactly-proper tags might be for a rubberized running track, but if you think you know better tagging, by all means, please apply them. Thanks for asking. | |
| 3 | 2020-11-12 23:03 | joeybab3 ♦24 | I wasn't sure, I had tagged it as a running path but you changed it to a footpath so I assumed there might be a reason for that. I will look more into it, I'd assume it would be running track but the documentation on that specific feature is rather poor. | |
| 4 | 2020-11-12 23:09 | stevea | Looking at the history of way/34519577 (Jogging Path), it's presently v24, though what has essentially changed from v23 is from highway=path to highway=footway. It's possible my tagging didn't like the "dashed" rendering in v23 of highway=track, so what if you change it to ... | |
| 93588860 by stevea @ 2020-11-05 08:39 | 1 | 2020-11-10 15:43 | Alian Chaves Admiral ♦1 | Avenida Escelsa Alto lage Cariacica Espirito Santo Brasil |
| 93029558 by stevea @ 2020-10-25 21:16 | 1 | 2020-10-29 04:10 | DP24PH ♦418 | Unfortunately, this changeset got too large, and it encroached the Republic of the Philippines. Kindly reduce to one specific area per country in order to prevent confusion and inconvenience to worldwide OSMappers. Don't forget to always remember that there are different Local OSM Communities i... |
| 2 | 2020-10-29 06:59 | stevea | Yes, I realize that this is an extremely large changeset, certainly the largest ("worldwide") edit I've ever done in my 11.5 years of OSM. In all that time, I've never heard of a changeset getting TOO large and I ask you to tell me what is the threshold for that.I am also qu... | |
| 3 | 2020-10-31 22:58 | danieldegroot2 ♦673 | Contributions will be seen in the History tab by anyone who has the contribution in view. For simplicity, the boundaries of a contribution are a square which span the minimum and maximum coordinates. So, even if you did not edit in one area in the square, it will be included in the square.This inc... | |
| 4 | 2020-10-31 23:09 | stevea | Thank you, although after 11.5 years in this project, I certainly have a working knowledge of how the History tab works.OK, so editors who are "in" the area contained within my edit will see my edit. So what? This happens to me all the time (in my area, people edit large areas that &... | |
| 92993731 by stevea @ 2020-10-24 16:24 | 1 | 2020-10-25 00:05 | Reeniz ♦74 | Por favor disminuye el tamaño de tus changeset --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92993731 |
| 2 | 2020-10-25 02:33 | stevea | Mis disculpas, el número de elementos cambiados se mantuvo deliberadamente bajo mientras lo hice (solo 14 formas y 1 relación en este conjunto de cambios).Por ejemplo, trabajé para mantenerlos en países individuales de América Central y del Sur, uno o dos a cad... | |
| 91384549 by stevea @ 2020-09-23 17:49 | 1 | 2020-09-24 03:44 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | 😮 |
| 2 | 2020-09-24 06:44 | stevea | I know, hun?! | |
| 3 | 2020-09-24 06:45 | stevea | Oops, "I know, huh?!" | |
| 89391271 by stevea @ 2020-08-14 06:50 | 1 | 2020-08-22 05:16 | compdude ♦169 | Noticed you retagged some of the heath as farmland. Not sure if that's correct; didn't think there was any farmland in this area. |
| 2 | 2020-08-22 07:25 | stevea | It is landuse in the sense of "use" rather than "actual cover," in other words "zoning" as farmland, not necessarily farmland. (From Kern and other County GIS imports).The balance between landuse and landcover is difficult in OSM. I had to make a choice that the l... | |
| 89390633 by stevea @ 2020-08-14 06:39 | 1 | 2020-08-22 05:13 | compdude ♦169 | It looks like you changed some of the natural=heath in this area to landuse=farmland, which I don't think is correct either. (pretty sure there's no farmland here in the middle of the desert) |
| 87473898 by stevea @ 2020-07-03 00:11 | 1 | 2020-07-11 20:33 | azakh-world ♦282 | Hello!You've retagged some routes to pt:version=1. I don't think an incompleteness of a route relation makes it belonging to obsolete schema. Stops in correct order will do for many PT tasks. route=subway wiki page says the recurrence of platform members is "0+".After all, su... |
| 2 | 2020-07-11 20:46 | stevea | I might be entirely wrong, but I believe that a PTv2 route must include all platforms and that a route with only (or primarily) "stations only" (no or few platforms) isn't a FULLY FORMED PTv2 route. I don't know how else to properly characterize such a thing (which LACMTA light_... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-11 21:12 | stevea | OK, I have re-read our route=subway and route=light_rail wiki and concluded that "0+" platforms is sufficient for a PTv2 route.I have fixed subway routes (Red and Purple) both in the map and wiki and am in the process of fixing light_rail similarly.However, I believe we REALLY shou... | |
| 4 | 2020-07-11 21:21 | stevea | Back to PTv2 for all LACMTA lines both in map data and wiki. Thanks for the heads up, they do put erasers on the ends of pencils for a good reason! | |
| 5 | 2020-07-11 21:52 | azakh-world ♦282 | Thank you for quick reaction!I think we should not expect complete data here and now. By monitoring rapid transport networks all over the world, I observe that a route of the quality enough for routing (separate directions, ordered stations/stop_positions/platforms and continuous rail line) is not... | |
| 6 | 2020-07-12 00:06 | stevea | I appreciate, too, your education of me on this topic, as it was a fuzzy edge in my understanding of where PTv1 "becomes" PTv2 and now I better understand it. I recognize you are "monitoring" how the map is used and doing some extrapolation (more-or-less) of your observations wh... | |
| 84955999 by stevea @ 2020-05-10 01:58 | 1 | 2020-05-10 03:42 | ppjj ♦56 | Admin boundaries in CT are just a mess right now. Who started this? |
| 2 | 2020-05-10 15:17 | stevea | It would be helpful if you say what, specifically, you believe is wrong. There is a rather messy Discussion going on at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level#Recently_added_Connecticut_COG_.28Regions.29_as_5_and_CDP_as_10_should_be_deleted which indicate "it was started"... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-11 11:41 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | You can also use overpass to look at the state of a relation some time ago, for example: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/TPJ | |
| 4 | 2020-05-13 13:27 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | @stevea it'd be helpful to link to the "status quo as agreed to in 2017" so that everyone can see what was actually agreed and by whom - there are lots of places where it might have been discussed in the past. | |
| 5 | 2020-05-13 17:49 | stevea | It is https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level where a section ends with"The bottom line: it has emerged as consensus that COGs, MPOs, similar "special purpose districts" and statistical areas defined by the US Census Bureau are tagged with neither boundary=adminis... | |
| 6 | 2020-05-17 13:59 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | I have removed some lengthy, tiresome, and accusatory messages from this discussion. Please refer to the wiki or the talk-us mailing list to see the arguments raised by different sides in the discussion. | |
| 85225612 by stevea @ 2020-05-14 22:23 | 1 | 2020-05-15 15:50 | aweech ♦369 | Hi, just letting you know that Magna is an incorporated metro township. I changed it to admin level 8 to match the other 2 metro townships that have been added to OSM so far. Happy mapping! |
| 2 | 2020-05-15 16:24 | stevea | Very kind of you; thanks much! And happy mapping to you. | |
| 3 | 2020-05-15 16:26 | stevea | As an aside, to be consistent with other states that put townships at admin_level=7, shouldn't 7 be the correct value for Utah's five metro townships? | |
| 4 | 2020-05-15 16:36 | aweech ♦369 | I think it's better to be consistent with the rest of Utah's city boundaries which are at admin_level=8. The metro townships have fewer powers than cities, so if there's any deviation they should be at admin_level=9. | |
| 5 | 2020-05-15 16:41 | stevea | Yes (and I don't want to start an argument), metro townships do have fewer powers, but they are not cities, which is what 8 denotes in Utah. In fact, Wikipedia says "A metro township is a type of municipal government in Utah equivalent to a civil township." As OSM calls US civil tow... | |
| 84922859 by stevea @ 2020-05-09 01:48 | 1 | 2020-05-12 20:51 | Mashin ♦556 | These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state. |
| 2 | 2020-05-12 22:03 | stevea | Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to eight relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to o... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-14 02:17 | Mashin ♦556 | Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue. | |
| 4 | 2020-05-14 02:55 | stevea | When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where ... | |
| 5 | 2020-05-14 05:12 | Mashin ♦556 | Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG. | |
| 6 | 2020-05-14 05:34 | stevea | Anybody has a right to change another user's data in OSM, especially when two things about that are true: 1) The data contradict wiki or established consensus and 2) the changer of the data makes a good faith effort to contact and communicate with the author and persuade them of their error. ... | |
| 7 | 2020-05-14 14:37 | Mashin ♦556 | I am going to repeat myself here: 1. You have no privilege to mass edit someones OSM contributions. 2. I gave you no permission nor was the conversation finished.3. You refuse to provide evidence of wide consensus to such tagging.4. You make your own personal interpretation of tags that many... | |
| 8 | 2020-05-14 19:53 | stevea | 1) This was not a mass edit. It was minor tag changing on 8 relations to comply with what we discussed, decided and documented in our wiki.2) "Your" permission was not necessary, though it was solicited for several days in the Talk page of the wiki.3) I have provided such evide... | |
| 9 | 2020-05-14 23:46 | stevea | This has been proposed multiple times by now: tag counties admin_level=6 and keep boundary=COG on RCOG boundaries. That is what they are. For now. If this continuing narrowing of the scope like this continues (putting it now on eight or nine of these or those), we winnow in on a winner.We cr... | |
| 10 | 2020-05-14 23:52 | stevea | Really, to describe sixty years of history here with two slightly differently tagged data (eight of these, nine of those) with fairly exact and well-constructed boundaries, that's pretty good work, really. Elegant, even. Calling one "relatively weak compared to other states" and the... | |
| 11 | 2020-05-15 01:43 | Mashin ♦556 | Again so you can understand it:* I did not change any data, I only added new data to OSM. You changed all counties in two states (CT, RI) and all COGs. That is a mass edit.* Providing two numbers is no evidence of any wide consensus as you claim. All I can say is that you are just making it up a... | |
| 84923472 by stevea @ 2020-05-09 02:42 | 1 | 2020-05-12 20:51 | Mashin ♦556 | These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state. |
| 2 | 2020-05-12 22:01 | stevea | Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to ou... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-14 02:18 | Mashin ♦556 | Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue. | |
| 4 | 2020-05-14 02:59 | stevea | When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where ... | |
| 5 | 2020-05-14 05:13 | Mashin ♦556 | Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG. | |
| 84923458 by stevea @ 2020-05-09 02:40 | 1 | 2020-05-12 20:51 | Mashin ♦556 | These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state. |
| 2 | 2020-05-12 22:01 | stevea | Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to ou... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-14 02:18 | Mashin ♦556 | Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue. | |
| 4 | 2020-05-14 02:59 | stevea | When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where ... | |
| 5 | 2020-05-14 05:13 | Mashin ♦556 | Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG. | |
| 84923447 by stevea @ 2020-05-09 02:39 | 1 | 2020-05-12 20:51 | Mashin ♦556 | These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state. |
| 2 | 2020-05-12 21:59 | stevea | Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to o... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-14 02:17 | Mashin ♦556 | Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue. | |
| 4 | 2020-05-14 02:58 | stevea | When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where ... | |
| 5 | 2020-05-14 05:12 | Mashin ♦556 | Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG. | |
| 84923391 by stevea @ 2020-05-09 02:34 | 1 | 2020-05-12 20:51 | Mashin ♦556 | These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state. |
| 2 | 2020-05-12 22:04 | stevea | Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, as while the number of ways seems large, this is only some modest tagging distinctions (accord... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-14 02:17 | Mashin ♦556 | Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue. | |
| 4 | 2020-05-14 02:57 | stevea | When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I ... | |
| 5 | 2020-05-14 05:12 | Mashin ♦556 | Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG. | |
| 84084268 by stevea @ 2020-04-24 22:30 | 1 | 2020-04-26 09:26 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,these 4 objects still have some foreign tags, could you remove them?Btw, are these tiny areas inside the city really preservation areas and not just parks?Jan |
| 2 | 2020-04-26 09:43 | stevea | I'm not really sure why these bother you so much, they are documented at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Additional_landuse_tags , where it says if these are really objectionable (I don't see them as such, perhaps you do), they can be removed. However, they are kep... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-26 09:45 | stevea | They are not parks, in the OSM sense of leisure=park. They are "preserved areas" in the sense of leisure=nature_reserve. | |
| 4 | 2020-04-26 09:53 | mueschel ♦6,565 | The tags you used here are not mentioned on this wiki page. They are also not used in any other changeset.You might want to specify what kind of protected area this is, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area | |
| 5 | 2020-04-26 10:03 | stevea | The tags are mentioned at the very end of this section of the wiki page, just before the beginning of the next section (Parks).Tagging leisure=nature_reserve is an older, still valid tag for a "less specified" area (as are these) compared to the newer tagging of boundary=protected_area... | |
| 6 | 2020-04-26 10:18 | mueschel ♦6,565 | I can't find any mention of 'ShapeSTLength' or 'ShapeSTArea' on this wiki page. | |
| 7 | 2020-04-26 10:20 | stevea | It is Kleene-star (regular expression syntax) mention as the last two sentences: "Sometimes tags in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (some refer to these as "foreign keys") are left in the data when they do not logically map well to OSM tags. Where objectionable, these tags can be deleted from OS... | |
| 8 | 2020-04-26 10:27 | mueschel ♦6,565 | So, there are now three tags for exactly the same thing? SHAPESTAre and SHAPE_STAr are mentioned on your page, but now you started tagging ShapeSTArea.Why do we need all of these tags? Which software is able to handle them all? | |
| 9 | 2020-04-26 10:30 | stevea | No software is able to handle them all. Humans use them to determine versions of data which are updated over time. Polygons such as these have been imported and/or curated into OSM for over a decade over many, many versions. The *ID and Shape* tags allow humans to much-more-easily determine wheth... | |
| 10 | 2020-04-26 14:03 | mueschel ♦6,565 | No. Adding some reference tag to identify objects makes sense, but adding a large number of tags with various different spellings for the same content doesn't. My understanding of many past import discussions is that the vast majority of mappers is against adding these raw data fields from fo... | |
| 11 | 2020-04-26 19:22 | stevea | OK, so we're good with OBJECTID and sccgis:objectid, yes? Let's also allow (because it is true) that over a decade-plus of integrating our public data into OSM (updates happen every few weeks to few months) thousands of polygons from that source being compared to their data in OSM can be ... | |
| 12 | 2020-04-26 23:24 | stevea | I (also) welcome further Discussion at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:California/Using_CPAD_data#.22Foreign.22_tagsTwo small classes of plastic keys, which slightly buzz and glow with slightly different nomenclature over the years of many versions, used efficiently to identify and checksum data ... | |
| 13 | 2020-04-28 12:16 | stevea | Hm, was it something I said? | |
| 14853920 by stevea @ 2013-01-30 23:09 | 1 | 2020-02-26 09:02 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,627 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203535534What is supposed to be represented by this object?It has no tags specifying what is this. |
| 2 | 2020-02-26 17:22 | stevea | It was a poorly mapped imported polygon. I have deleted it as such. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. | |
| 79626874 by stevea @ 2020-01-16 01:06 | 1 | 2020-01-20 20:35 | azakh-world ♦282 | Hi.Orange line now differs from that on the scheme at https://www.sdmts.com/schedules-real-time-maps-and-routes/trolley. Are you sure in your changes?BR, Alexey |
| 2 | 2020-01-20 20:38 | stevea | Can you please be more specific about HOW Orange Line differs? (And I have taken this train many times, but getting the final OSM details on it seems to be difficult, partly because it also has freight traffic, that is still sorting itself out as you'll see if you read California/Railroads wik... | |
| 3 | 2020-01-20 20:50 | stevea | Just to be clear: the Orange Line in San Diego is missing quite a few platforms and this is noted in a fixme tag.Whoa, now I SEE! SDMTS changed the terminus from Santee to El Cajon. That must've JUST happened: fixed. Thanks to you and your tool for catching this. | |
| 4 | 2020-01-20 20:58 | stevea | Still fixing Orange and other routes, give me about twenty minutes, please. | |
| 5 | 2020-01-20 21:25 | stevea | OK, I think I've got all the updates into OSM and downgraded the wiki from "green" (OK) PTv1 to "yellow" PTv2 (as all 4 light_rail routes are missing platforms). | |
| 79664699 by stevea @ 2020-01-16 20:12 | 1 | 2020-01-20 12:10 | oba510 ♦256 | Looking at this more closely, some more things went wrong in this changeset. The old_railway_operator tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323745114/history and other places around Sacramento got changed to "Abandoned Railroad"... The Iron Horse Trail, 105th Ave in San Leandro, The M... |
| 2 | 2020-01-20 15:57 | stevea | I have reverted this changeset. It seems like a JOSM editing error on my part, although I'm not entirely clear what I did wrong. I will certainly be more careful here and try to keep such edits "more local" rather than statewide.I apologize for the disruption(s). -stevea | |
| 79664489 by stevea @ 2020-01-16 20:07 | 1 | 2020-01-20 12:02 | oba510 ♦256 | Can you take a look at nodes 6571769713 and 6571769714? Something went a little wrong in Alameda. The old_railway_operator=[name of the street] tag also got added to Blanding and Clement in another changeset, which seems a little odd. Isn't that part of the old Alameda Beltline? I'm no... |
| 2 | 2020-01-20 15:37 | stevea | Wow, weird. I did not knowingly edit in this area, either in this changeset or another. i did delete the oro tag on ..13 and ..14. But I couldn't find "Blanding and Clement" (they don't intersect?), nor a stop_position node for them, so I didn't delete what I couldn'... | |
| 79263054 by stevea @ 2020-01-06 19:42 | 1 | 2020-01-07 19:05 | Adamant1 ♦222 | SteveA, what about the polygons where "sloppy" except that you don't like my edits? Also, it doesn't help when you do 133 pages of changes in one go, including deleting a bunch of stuff. Especially by using the SCCGIS zoning data. Which you've been told before already can�... |
| 2 | 2020-01-07 19:48 | stevea | I believe my changeset comments in changeset/79261829 answer your concerns here. If not, please let me know here. | |
| 3 | 2020-01-07 21:19 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | Data Working Group here. You have bother been asked in the past to refrain from fiddling with data contributed by the other. @Adamant1, there is lots of rubbish data all over California that you could fix; could you be persuaded to concentrate your efforts in areas not originally worked by stevea? @... | |
| 4 | 2020-01-07 22:02 | stevea | Thank you for taking the time to arbitrate, DWG. The previous (and only) time both of us were blocked, I was admonished for not specifically saying who was responsible for a poor edit (as you said "it was obvious from the comments who that was") yet here I am told that calling out a speci... | |
| 5 | 2020-01-07 22:39 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Woodpeck, with all due respect where's your comment in changeset 79131363 about how SteveA shouldn't write needless messages to me in discussions I'm involved in? I'm not doing this one sided thing where I should piss off to "my side" of the state, never to map where he... | |
| 6 | 2020-01-08 22:35 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Woodpeck Et al. I opened https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2501 to helpfully address the "messages are to long" issue. Its natural to run with the amount of rope we are given. I don't put that on SteveA, freebeer, me, or other users who sometimes write ... | |
| 7 | 2020-01-09 04:38 | freebeer ♦1,598 | A. Dama, to go off-topic but to throw in two pence, a character limit on changeset comments seems pointless, as i've not seen the abuse in comments (that can't be anonymous), unlike the osm notes we worked in common in the past where complete junk was posted.i've hit the recent no... | |
| 8 | 2020-01-09 05:07 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Freebeer, opening the issue was more to push the issue to wider audience so if it gets shot down there hopefully it won't come up here again. Although, I mostly agree shorter won't solve most the problems that come up in changeset comments. As far as the polygon thing, since your bette... | |
| 79261829 by stevea @ 2020-01-06 19:06 | 1 | 2020-01-07 19:13 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Same comment goes for this edit as the other one. SteveA, what about the polygons where "smearing" by by me and bdiscoe except that you don't like my edits? I know for a fact that I didn't "smear" anything and I doubt Bdiscoe did either. Especially the 151 pages of... |
| 2 | 2020-01-07 19:43 | stevea | With a calm tone, I answer you.When I say "smear," I am talking about how using JOSM (and possibly iD, I'm not sure) to edit a polygon or multipolygon member can sometimes (especially with a copy-paste) re-write the polygon anywhere from a few centimeters to about a meter or two f... | |
| 3 | 2020-01-07 21:02 | Adamant1 ♦222 | 1. Just so we are 100% clear on this, your reason for the revert (and that's what it was) is that "things look different when modified, because software"? 2. It is a revert because you didn't "improve" on my or bdiscoe edits. You "reset" (erased) them to t... | |
| 4 | 2020-01-07 21:27 | Adamant1 ♦222 | One more thing, nothing against Jeisenbe because I've done a ton of good work with him on the style and elsewhere (part of the reason he is a maintainer is because I recommended him), but his opinion of places and how good they are mapped doesn't dictate mapping policy or who can edit what... | |
| 5 | 2020-01-07 21:44 | stevea | At the risk of both of us being warned about very long change sets, I'll answer.#1: This was not a revert, as that is a specific thing and this wasn't that. It was a correction to some data you changed which left them in an inferior state from how they were. I simply edited three it... | |
| 6 | 2020-01-08 21:59 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Two points and its not arguing because I have every right to ask someone who reverted me why they did. As well as the right to reply when its clearly wrong. Importantly, I'm doing so by referencing the Wiki and established guidelines. Which is not just my "opinion." Nor an evaluation... | |
| 7 | 2020-01-08 22:25 | stevea | Adam, please let this go. It absolutely IS arguing and I and this community are absolutely exhausted of your argumentative tone.1) I hope to not have to repeat and repeat this as you do: what I did was not a revert. I am not artificially semantically splitting hairs as I say that. "Rev... | |
| 8 | 2020-01-08 23:37 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I let it go Steve. We where good until you sent me the snide message. I've done nothing but bend over backwards to be accommodating of your quirks from the start of this. I don't even open or comment on notes anywhere close to your area anymore because Woodpeck said it would be intimating ... | |
| 9 | 2020-01-08 23:38 | stevea | Wow. | |
| 10 | 2020-01-09 03:20 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Steve, pretend its not you I'm talking about here. Simple question, do you think its a normal, civil, "just getting along" thing to threaten to sue someone twice if they ever talk to you again and then waiting for a little time to pass so you can rudely message them against the reques... | |
| 11 | 2020-01-09 03:24 | stevea | My behavior speaks for itself. So does yours.Enough already. | |
| 12 | 2020-01-09 03:52 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Yeah it does. That's my point. I knew you wouldn't answer it or respond to anything else. You never do when it's your behavior being questioned. But you'll go on vapidly forever about everyone else. So, useless comments like "wow" are totally expected. "Enough ... | |
| 79035035 by stevea @ 2019-12-31 00:24 | 1 | 2019-12-31 12:05 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,this area doesn't have a valid physical tag:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/756164120Could you explain the meaning of the 'cpan;acres' key? If this is the area, it is given with a micrometer precision, which is not useful at all. I suggest to either remove all the decimal... |
| 2 | 2019-12-31 14:03 | stevea | Please see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Using_CPAD_data which I completed yesterday to address similar concerns elsewhere. | |
| 78511793 by stevea @ 2019-12-17 07:26 | 1 | 2019-12-26 16:11 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | Hello! You added a bigger number of unknown tags ACRES, AGNCY_ID, AGNCY_TYP, HOLDING_ID, MNG_AG_TYP, UNIT_IDin this change set. Please explain the source of this information and the meaning of the keys. See also http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pfg |
| 2 | 2019-12-26 17:33 | stevea | They are from CPAD 2019b data, as documented on our Contributors and Santa_Cruz_County,_California wiki pages.While I endeavor during these additions to remove all tags (except sometimes ACRES and usually UNIT_ID, so that we may compare between older CPAD, OSM versions and newer CPAD versions of... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-26 19:48 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | I don't have anything against a version number (source) and / or an ID from the source (ref:source). However, I am not a friend of undocumented keys, which also violate the rule of lower case and British English. Furthermore, an area indication (ACRES) to a key without unit is difficult and onl... | |
| 4 | 2019-12-26 20:03 | stevea | Going forward (and backward, as it has been included for exactly this reason), in time, UNIT_ID is a highly-useful tag to "index" between various versions of CPAD data (so far we are up to a third, though we no longer call them v1 / 2016a or v2 / 2018a, as no v3 was coined with 2019b, we n... | |
| 5 | 2019-12-26 20:33 | stevea | Think of ACRES as a kind of checksum of the data, as that is how it gets used (for comparison purposes between versions of data). | |
| 6 | 2019-12-27 01:40 | freebeer ♦1,598 | UNIT_ID as you use it, seems a property of the source data that, much like the TIGER wozzit numbers that get automagically deleted upon editing by most editor utilities, and are stored as subtags of top-level tiger tags. that sentence lost its way mid-stream, if you find it, please send it home.\... | |
| 7 | 2019-12-27 01:58 | stevea | Thank you for your opinions. | |
| 8 | 2019-12-27 05:02 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | I really appreciate your work and I also answer respectfully. And I'm not the only one who worries about rash adoption of original keys, although there are quite useful suggestions according to OSM standard, which would allow a clean classification without further sources. And because I app... | |
| 9 | 2019-12-27 05:07 | stevea | This isn't rash, this isn't adoption. This is a live, plastic map made by humans, plural.The process being built is not radically altered by the plastic uses of tags as they are used here; it is human and organic.Because of the tone here, I have begun to formulate in my mind a pla... | |
| 10 | 2019-12-27 05:48 | stevea | It is helpful for me to absorb more community input about "source" tags: explicitly set on each datum or does a reference to the source in changeset comments suffice? I've watched the trend towards the latter for many years, yet I consider an explicit source tag on each CPAD datum, ... | |
| 11 | 2019-12-30 21:59 | stevea | I have created https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Using_CPAD_dataFeedback is welcome and appreciated.If you'd like me to "go the extra mile" and search and purge older tags, I will do so if requested, but I consider that an annoying errand, as there isn't a great deal of this &quo... | |
| 78493220 by stevea @ 2019-12-16 21:57 | 1 | 2019-12-21 09:17 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,several of these areas have some foreign tags like 'ACRES' or 'UNIT_ID'. Did you add them on purpose or was this a mistake?Jan |
| 2 | 2019-12-21 19:25 | stevea | CPAD data are under construction with the collaboration of other OSM volunteers in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. We're now on on our third version of these (2019b) and the UNIT_ID allows us to compare particular units. You have mentioned to me that ACRES can be computational... | |
| 66783730 by stevea @ 2019-01-30 20:57 | 1 | 2019-12-04 19:28 | clay_c ♦489 | Hey there stevea,This is mostly just a technicality, but what was your reasoning behind changing this back to railway=light_rail? The remainder of the route and infrastructure for the SPRINTER is still mapped with train=yes rather than light_rail=yes, so if you meant to change this to a light ra... |
| 2 | 2019-12-04 19:44 | stevea | I agree with your analysis and changes here. This has always been mildly confusing in my mind as to how DMU lines are best mapped, especially when the tracks are used for both a light_rail service (whether DMU or electric) AND there is also some freight on the line (as on San Diego Trolley's O... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-05 07:50 | stevea | relation/6161003 (Escondido Subdivision) seems fine — it is even additionally stitched into local transit as a bus_route.relation/1371791 (SPRINTER) was updated with the text of the change in the wiki. In short, this route=light_rail is now a route=train and is documented in the wiki as s... | |
| 4 | 2019-12-06 19:52 | stevea | I have changed relation/1371791 back to route=light_rail (from route=train). Everything I know and can find about this calls it a "light rail" and calling it a train (as in heavy rail) seems incorrect to me.Wiki changes made yesterday were backed out (to re-reflect it is light_rail, n... | |
| 5 | 2019-12-06 20:36 | stevea | Now, finally, the question confronts us: do we change the elements of the Escondido Subdivision from railway=rail to railway=light_rail where applicable? Following the example of the San Diego Trolley's three infrastructure lines (Blue, Orange, Green, though there is also a Silver passenger r... | |
| 6 | 2019-12-06 22:06 | stevea | The rail elements in the route=light_rail are changed from railway=rail to railway=light_rail.Despite the service being DMU instead of electric, everything about this says "light" rail instead of "heavy," (which would lead to a route=train for the passenger service, but it is... | |
| 77339381 by stevea @ 2019-11-20 17:55 | 1 | 2019-11-21 05:03 | joeybab3 ♦24 | Ah I see, i will stop tagging those areas as wood then |
| 2 | 2019-11-21 18:40 | stevea | Thanks. This has been rather complicated for at least a decade, and it may change. Not everybody reads the county wiki, so it's easy to miss.The root of this is how people tag differently for "landuse" (as the university is) vs. "landcover" (like wood, grass, scrub...)... | |
| 69180559 by stevea @ 2019-04-13 15:38 | 1 | 2019-06-04 15:14 | Adamant1 ♦222 | How is mapping a commercial area over what is clearly retail and residential a "landuse fix"? It's pretty clear at this point that your just using County GIS imports to "fill in" the map. Without having to put any work into it or actually reviewing what your doing. As I'... |
| 2 | 2019-06-04 19:40 | stevea | OSM Community: This user has been told numerous times by both me directly and the DWG to not contact me, yet he repeatedly insists on doing so in private missive, Notes and changeset comments. I consider this harassment (everybody should, as it is), especially with his non-specific complaint in th... | |
| 3 | 2019-06-04 21:50 | Adamant1 ♦222 | know one in the DWG told us not to contact each other. They said not to argue and be concise about things. That was it. There was no issue when I sent you a message a few days ago about some picnic tables you wrongly tagged. So I'm not sure what the issue is now, but whatever. Thanks for the ne... | |
| 4 | 2019-06-04 22:16 | stevea | It is patently false that Adam was not asked by OSM officials to not engage with me: see his user Talk page, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/User_talk:Adamant1#Temporary_block_on_1_May_2019 where Wiki Administrator Minh asks him this, and says such engagement now "is the responsibility of administra... | |
| 5 | 2019-06-05 01:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "see his user Talk page"Where where Wiki Administrator Minh said we should take a break from communicating with each other as a cooling off. Nothing there says no contact ever again. "Additionally, _I myself_ have asked Adam REPEATEDLY to not engage with me, privately and publ... | |
| 6 | 2019-06-05 01:30 | stevea | _I_ have said don't contact me. Stop this. Stop this now. This virtually constant provocation will not be tolerated. It is harassment. it is abuse.As Adam says he has "zero issue leaving me alone," then doesn't, all can see how disingenuous he is.When he says "g... | |
| 70396572 by stevea @ 2019-05-18 20:49 | 1 | 2019-05-28 02:36 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Going by Bing Streetside they look like picnic tables. Plus, the southern one in particular looks to wide in the images to a bench and you can clearly see to seats on the north/south sides of it. Especially in the Mapbox images. So you might want to re-tag them, or if not, I will. Either way. |
| 70408722 by stevea @ 2019-05-19 12:16 | 1 | 2019-05-20 02:07 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "River Street area landuses""source DigitalGlobe Premium Imagery."I thought you said the satellite images couldn't be used for mapping landuse? SMH. |
| 69784624 by stevea @ 2019-05-01 23:26 | 1 | 2019-05-11 10:35 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Hi Steve,https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3721826 looks quite odd. Is it really all farmland in OSM terms? The imagery suggests that it looks like the sort of lightly-wooded, part residential (but non-farming) landuse that I'd expect round here. I'm guessing that the relation ... |
| 2 | 2019-05-12 16:23 | stevea | Hi Andy: I apologize in advance for the length of this, it appears to me to be necessary. If there is a superior venue to continue this conversation (a talk page, a mailing list...), I invite you to point the conversation there."Looks quite odd," how, exactly? (That's rhetorica... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-12 18:00 | stevea | I'll politely, respectfully and correctly answer the way/41172401 issue addressed. As that polygon (which abuts the large farmland polygon noted above) is properly tagged landuse=forest, OSM data consumers can correctly conclude that active timber production either is going on or could go on e... | |
| 4 | 2019-05-13 10:25 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Just to address one thing - you say "I apologize in advance for the length of this" but that is something that you absolutely have the power to change - just use fewer words! Can you try answering the question again, but using fewer words so that I can actually read it without it taking... | |
| 5 | 2019-05-13 17:57 | stevea | Andy, these are not tweet-length discussions. They require more than a few words, so I use them. As I address your questions, but risk (or engage in) loquacity, I recognize I may try your patience, hence my early offer of an apology, perhaps better characterized as a warning of "lengthy reply... | |
| 6 | 2019-05-13 18:24 | iandees ♦723 | SteveA: we've talked about this before, but lengthy make it very difficult to follow your argument or the discussion in general. People will skip over your long prose and find the one or two sentences that look the most controversial and argue those. Please work harder at using fewer words.... | |
| 7 | 2019-05-13 23:27 | stevea | I appreciate the time volunteers take to answer questions in OSM, DWG included.Ian, again, these are not tweet-length topics, they require words. Either folks have the time to engage with me in dialog, or not. I do not wish to abuse that privilege, so I continue to better endeavor toward the c... | |
| 8 | 2019-05-14 00:21 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | @stevea - you seem to be saying that you have mapped things in this area primarily based on what your local government allows you do do in a particular area. This is not how most people map things worldwide. I often say to people mapping things that don't exist that "OSM is a map of thin... | |
| 9 | 2019-05-14 16:47 | stevea | No, that is not what I am saying; it isn't local government, it is the property owners. Would you re-tag this area to something else, which would in effect say "I'm asserting away these property rights and agricultural activities by tagging based on what I can see, rather than what t... | |
| 10 | 2019-05-15 22:53 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Just to answer about the only bit I can parse from that:> you say what YOU "would expect round here" (why is that?)It's based on having visited the area (though not for over 10 years) when working near San Jose.As for the rest of what you've said - I really have no idea ... | |
| 11 | 2019-05-15 23:10 | stevea | Oh, Andy, my goodness; that old trick. My sentences are complete and grammatical. I recently had another volunteer read this thread and he had no trouble following it.Inside it, the owners can and do fell timber. When those trees are down, they plant more trees. This is called landuse=forest.... | |
| 12 | 2019-05-16 00:03 | stevea | There are also chicken coops (and grain-scatter areas for them to free-range), hog pens (ditto), llama ranches, and ostrich enclosures here (yes, I've eaten at the Ostrich Grill in Capitola; they source their ostrich locally).As landuse=farmland includes (from our wiki) "wide open spac... | |
| 13 | 2019-05-17 14:16 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Re "Oh, Andy, my goodness; that old trick" there's no "trick" here - I read and reread what you wrote several times but communication simply did not occur.Re the second explanation - thanks, that's clearer.What I think you're saying is:There are trees in both... | |
| 14 | 2019-05-17 15:49 | stevea | Yes, that's correct, but a permit to chop down trees is not the defining criterion, simply one of them. OSM's "landuse=forestry" is a mess (at least 7 approaches worldwide, we largely hew to what our wiki defines Approach 3 around here). Here, landuse=farmland has what I'd... | |
| 15 | 2019-05-17 16:10 | iandees ♦723 | Tone it down, SteveA. There's no need to be confrontational. | |
| 16 | 2019-05-17 16:57 | stevea | Wow, Ian. I am polite, conciliatory, answer questions, say please and thank you, and try not to sound strident as I dialog. Without actually saying I am confrontational, you hint that I was. I don't characterize this dialog as confrontational, though what you might detect is my frustration t... | |
| 17 | 2019-05-17 17:14 | iandees ♦723 | Literally every message you leave in these conversations is escalatory in nature. And *I* am saying your behavior or confrontational, so it's not "nobody". Your reaction to the community asking you valid questions is that you feel that you're being badgered and you react defensiv... | |
| 18 | 2019-05-17 17:16 | stevea | Ian, Andy and community: really, all I wish to do is fully answer the question(s) and move on. | |
| 19 | 2019-05-17 23:09 | Adamant1 ♦222 | 1. If decide to put a bee hive in my backyard that I then cultivate honey from to sell at the local farmers market (which my city permits me to do), in your opinion would it then be better to re-tagged my property as landuse=farmland from landuse=residential? 2. If so, how exactly would it benef... | |
| 20 | 2019-05-17 23:38 | LeifRasmussen ♦88 | > 1. If decide to put a bee hive in my backyard that I then cultivate honey from to sell at the local farmers market (which my city permits me to do), in your opinion would it then be better to re-tagged my property as landuse=farmland from landuse=residential? I have bee hives, and I'v... | |
| 21 | 2019-05-18 03:11 | stevea | Thank you for sharing your opinion of how you tag your own neighborhood, Leif. | |
| 22 | 2019-05-18 06:00 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "Ian, Andy and community: really, all I wish to do is fully answer the question(s)"I guess since he didn't answer my questions, he doesn't consider me a member of the community. Sad :("I have bee hives, and I've marked my neighborhood as residential, just like i... | |
| 69949209 by stevea @ 2019-05-06 19:33 | 1 | 2019-05-11 10:04 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Hi Steve,Is there any more information about "SCCGIS Zoning.zip v5" anywhere? I can see a reference to it at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California , but nothing about what it actually is, what the licence is, that sort of thing.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2019-05-16 19:01 | stevea | As described at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#California, no license is needed. It is illegal in California to place a license on "public record" data. Therefore the data are freely available to OSM and always have been."What they are" are described and linked to a... | |
| 69741050 by stevea @ 2019-04-30 16:18 | 1 | 2019-05-01 12:41 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Hello,What does "Zone=PR" mean here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2019-05-01 16:52 | stevea | It is an abbreviation from the Santa Cruz County GIS Department's Zoning.zip file (details in the SCC wiki) for "Park." But in my experience, especially recently, these map logically map much less well to what OSM considers leisure=park. The tag can be deleted, and in fact, it has b... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-01 17:28 | stevea | I've deleted the tag. | |
| 4 | 2019-05-01 17:42 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Thanks | |
| 69638003 by stevea @ 2019-04-27 12:04 | 1 | 2019-04-30 15:04 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | There seems to be some duplication here (and it seems to predate the last two of your revert changesets that affected https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41382085 ). The place of worship seems to be duplicated by https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/358849300/history . One is one of nmixter's imp... |
| 2 | 2019-04-30 17:16 | stevea | In changeset 69743537, I conflated tags from the node (GNIS import) to the way representing the amenity, deleted the node, then stripped superfluous tags from BOTH the GNIS import and Nathan's (nmixter's) import off of the way representing the amenity boundary. So, no more duplication. | |
| 69689197 by stevea @ 2019-04-29 10:15 | 1 | 2019-04-30 02:39 | Adamant1 ♦222 | What "damage" exactly did you repair? you can't just go and revert people's changes without saying what exactly the issue was or without commenting on their changeset first. Otherwise, your edit warring. I thought Santa Cruz could be edited. So can it? or is it only OK to edi... |
| 2 | 2019-04-30 02:48 | stevea | As long as you remain a Contributor in good standing, you are welcome to edit OSM in Santa Cruz or anywhere on Earth. However, when you violate (as I say in the changeset comments as to my source) "OSM conventions" (of not damaging existing and valid data, which is considered vandalism), ... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-30 02:50 | stevea | Anybody watching: permission to treat the witness as hostile? | |
| 4 | 2019-04-30 03:01 | iandees ♦723 | If you can't say something constructive then don't say anything at all. Avoid each other until you can speak like you're both older than a 6 year old.I don't know what the deal is between you two, but you need to resolve it and not spit at each other in changeset comments. Th... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-30 03:06 | stevea | Thank you, Ian. | |
| 6 | 2019-04-30 03:14 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "Twin Lakes Neighborhood Park" I didn't edit Twin Lakes Neighboorhood Park in any way that I'm aware of. Let alone in any way that couldn't have been easily adjusted, without also reverting a bunch of perfectly fine mapped houses and businesses in the process. Your obvio... | |
| 7 | 2019-04-30 03:43 | Adamant1 ♦222 | iandees, we both agreed we were going to be civil to each other and not go off anymore yesterday. Today though, he reverted a bunch of houses I mapped. In no is it "spitting" for me to ask him why. I also shouldn't have to just "work it out" with someone who repeatedly does... | |
| 8 | 2019-04-30 03:50 | stevea | "Hundreds of edits?" That is a slanderous untruth. | |
| 9 | 2019-04-30 04:01 | Adamant1 ♦222 | It was at least a 150 houses etc this time reverted me, and then a bunch of edits last time. So, like 200-250ish edits if not more like 300-350. That's hundreds. Unless your talking about changesets. Then it's less. But whatever the number, high or low, or whatever metric you want to go by... | |
| 10 | 2019-04-30 04:04 | stevea | I have nothing good to say here, so I'll say nothing at all. Except what I just said. | |
| 11 | 2019-04-30 04:05 | Adamant1 ♦222 | If you hadn't of lied multiple times about your civility, wish to get along, etc etc and then screwed with my edits repeatedly instead, we wouldn't even be having this conversion right now. So it's 100% on you. I hope the DWG does actually talk to you this time. They really should dea... | |
| 12 | 2019-04-30 04:09 | stevea | I have nothing good to say here, so I'll say nothing at all. | |
| 13 | 2019-04-30 04:27 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Btw iandees, I also reported him to an admin on the wiki about a week and a half ago for the same kind of stuff. They didn't do anything either. I even told him multiple times that I'd welcome talking to someone from the DWG if he wanted to report me for anything I've done. Know one e... | |
| 14 | 2019-04-30 05:00 | Adamant1 ♦222 | also for anyone interested here's a few choice things he's said just today, when I was minding my own business, not contacting him and also after we had both agreed yesterday we where going to be civil to each other and not do this kind of thing anymore (I hadn't contacted him sense t... | |
| 15 | 2019-04-30 05:08 | iandees ♦723 | Sure, you both have said some dumb things publicly I can't imagine what private messages look like. As I said, this and other threads between you two are embarrassing and childish. Please find a different way to express yourself. | |
| 16 | 2019-04-30 05:59 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "Sure, you both have said some dumb things publicly." Calling someone "little, weak, poorly constructed" goes beyond a dumb comment. So does "dealing with you is like spoon-feeding a baby." Both are clearly abussive. Feel free to find something on that level that ... | |
| 17 | 2019-04-30 06:06 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Btw, I find myself wondering if that rat comment was slightly anti-semetic considering I had just mentioned a Jewish friend a few hours before that. It seems like a pretty random thing to call someone just off the cuff for no reason. Right when I mention having a Jewish friend...Hhhmmmm....You never... | |
| 18 | 2019-04-30 06:17 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Wait, I'll correct myself there. He called me a mouse, I always get them confused, but its still odd timing and people should be careful about not saying anything that could even be missinterpreted that way, but its still my bad for mixing them up. Ok. I'm out. | |
| 19 | 2019-04-30 08:02 | stevea | This guy needs a new hobby. | |
| 20 | 2019-04-30 14:40 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | @iandees, thanks.@stevea and @Adamant1 - both of you are digging holes making you both look more and more childish. If you don't stop we (te DWG) will enforce a block on both of you to enforce a "cooling off" period.To get back to specifics, a changeset comment of "Repairing ... | |
| 67446142 by stevea @ 2019-02-21 22:48 | 1 | 2019-04-24 08:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I'm wondering why you put "UP" in the name of the railroad segment. UP is an abbreviation of the operator and the operator name should stay in the operator tag. The name of the line is Valley Subdivision. It was that way for years and it was fine (not to mention, that's just it&#... |
| 2 | 2019-04-24 12:36 | stevea | There are two Valley Subdivisions in California, that's why. See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads, or https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways, where you can read about the "proximity exception" for nearby similarly-named railways by different operat... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-24 15:34 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Like I didn't already know that. I didn't ask for links to a wiki. I asked why you did it. Referring me to something I've already read isn't answering the question. To quote you "There are two Valley Subdivisions in California." Notice IN CALIFORNIA. Now, to quote t... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-24 15:40 | Adamant1 ♦222 | BTW, now that the wiki contradicts you, ten bucks says you'll either deflect away from it by either ignoring it completely or going on thing about how it's "all ambiguous anyway man." Or you'll have some other B.S. reason why it should be discounted. Just like you did with t... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-24 16:15 | stevea | I haven't any clue what you know or don't know. If giving you links to a wiki answers your question as I do my best to remain polite in the face of your continuing verbal abuse, that's what I'm going to do: refer you to a wiki. So, RTFM. Prefixing with UP is not "clearly... | |
| 6 | 2019-04-24 22:56 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "I haven't any clue what you know or don't know. If giving you links to a wiki answers your question as I do my best to remain polite in the face of your continuing verbal abuse"This is the exact kind of none nonsensical arguing for the sake of it stuff you do. What's ve... | |
| 7 | 2019-04-24 23:08 | Adamant1 ♦222 | You seem to have an extremely miss guided opinion to that things decided in a "group" (whatever that means), can circumvent already more established and fundamental guidelines. Which is patently wrong. The rules about name tagging is a basic core thing to OSM and isn't ignored in mapp... | |
| 8 | 2019-04-24 23:11 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Since you didn't post anything about it on the talk page of the naming article before it was added to it or the rails article. So, yet again something else you don't do yourself but expect everyone else to. | |
| 9 | 2019-04-25 07:50 | Adamant1 ♦222 | So I looked into it more, and I still don't see anywhere where you discussed the "proximity rule" (it's not even a rule. It's more like a suggestion). With anyone. Let alone adding an operator abbreviation to the first part of a name (in case you missed it, there's a wh... | |
| 10 | 2019-04-25 23:17 | stevea | No. Just as you don't like private missives more widely discussed, I do not discuss private missives where consensus was reached, or however it may have been achieved, that is what documenting consensus on wiki does. I owe you nothing, especially after my sincere efforts to communicate with y... | |
| 11 | 2019-04-26 04:54 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | What in Sam Hill is going on here? I’m seeing comments between you two flying by in the changeset comment tracker and it really stands out among the constructive comments that otherwise turn up. Clearly, there are hurt feelings and a total breakdown in trust.I’m not even sure I want ... | |
| 12 | 2019-04-26 09:52 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "I’m not even sure I want to know who originally started this whole flamewar and where"Thanks for the comment. An outside opinion is pretty helpful sometimes and I totally agree with what you said. It doesn't really matter where it started or who started it. Its inappropriat... | |
| 13 | 2019-04-26 18:30 | stevea | I'd be fine leaving it on, I'd be fine if Adamant1 were to remove it, then document that he did that in the wiki (saying why, that it is unlikely for these to be confused, except in a California-wide context), as I agree they are not proximate except for being in the same state.Minh, t... | |
| 14 | 2019-04-26 19:56 | stevea | BTW, I believe it started largely at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dpark#Do_beaches_qualify_as_parks.3F as Adamant1 asked the question embedded in the link. Though I agree it doesn't matter who started it. | |
| 15 | 2019-04-27 02:02 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "'Id be fine leaving it on, I'd be fine if Adamant1 were to remove it"Thanks. I appreciate the compromise and if I do delete it I'll be sure to document it in the wiki. "BTW, I believe it started largely at"Since you brought it up, personally I'd g... | |
| 46995664 by stevea @ 2017-03-19 22:36 | 1 | 2019-04-20 11:57 | Adamant1 ♦222 | The area's of node 4744015554 and also the small park that's actually someone's house above it aren't parks. Again, you miss mapping houses and tiny grassy areas as parks. |
| 2 | 2019-04-21 02:28 | stevea | When you say "above it," do you mean "northerly?"And nope, these are legally and jurisdictionally part of Twin Lakes State Beach. I am not mismapping, I am mapping "what is." If you can specify what is wrong here, say what that is, please. I don't see how th... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-26 07:28 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "these are legally and jurisdictionally part of Twin Lakes State Beach"Hhhmmm, do you have a reference for that? Even if they were, your still mixing up legal status (I.E. landuse) with a leisure activity (I.E. what makes something a park in OSM. Plus, as we have already established el... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-26 19:09 | stevea | I didn't say the Parks Department owns the building, I said the Parks Department owns the land. Buildings on land are also owned by the owner of the land, however they may be used. (Storage, leased to others, whatever). This IS "sound logic." What I said I didn't know is what... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-26 21:36 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "Speculate all you like about curtains and planters, meanwhile, I'll shrug (and pay little heed to word salad by others). You haven't really proven or disproven anything."I used the evidence in OpenStreetMap to show it's a residence. That's what the things they prov... | |
| 68315718 by stevea @ 2019-03-20 00:29 | 1 | 2019-04-20 11:09 | Adamant1 ♦222 | This whole thing is mapped wrong. Black's Beach and Lincoln Beach are separate beaches. It needs to lose the park:type tag to. Another major thing is that instead of having all these chopped up Twin Lakes State Beaches with a bunch of unnecessary relations, it should be one long beach. Since th... |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 11:10 | Adamant1 ♦222 | It's not a park though. | |
| 3 | 2019-04-20 18:34 | stevea | I disagree (that it needs to lose the park:type tag). Can you offer some (wiki?) documentation about the park:type tag that would support your assertion?And exactly where is the boundary between Black's and Lincoln? Many (I've been there and asked people) conflate the two and also di... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-26 02:38 | Adamant1 ♦222 | There was a map on an official Santa Cruz website that I can't find now where they were separate. I'll try to find it again. As far as multipolygons go. They are necessary to describe complexity when they are necessary to describe complexity. I never implied otherwise. This just isn�... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-26 02:39 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Btw, Sunny Cove Beach County Park still needs to be deleted. Since there's no such thing. I looked into it. It's just a beach. There's nothing called that. | |
| 6 | 2019-04-26 02:44 | stevea | Try, try again. You buy no time spewing that, sez i.You don't like Sunny Cove? Map it. Or shut the fu*k up. I'm tired of your verbal vomit abuse time-wasting spin-around-in-circles-go-nowhere. Map. Or shut the fu*k up. You've been given a hundred opportunities. | |
| 7 | 2019-04-26 09:28 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Yikes. Communication mistakes like here I guess. Real good job being civil. I'll take the high road and ignore most of it, I guess. Except to say that your the one that went on constantly about how I needed the consensus of the local community before doing anything. I told you from the start it... | |
| 8 | 2019-04-26 20:53 | stevea | https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach calls it "Sunny Cove Beach County Park." https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach talks about how County Parks gets to name things in the area. Importantly, http://www.scparks.com/Home/Parks/ListofAllCountyParks.aspx shows County P... | |
| 68358376 by stevea @ 2019-03-21 01:25 | 1 | 2019-04-20 11:36 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Again, someones back yard. Not a park, clearly not a county park. |
| 2 | 2019-04-21 01:12 | stevea | I have no idea which park you refer to in this changeset. Please specify by ID # of the node, way or relation. | |
| 3 | 2019-04-26 02:51 | Adamant1 ♦222 | You could easily just click the edit button and look you know. Since you don't want to, it's the three little "parks" along the coast between the end of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the beach. In the lower corner of the square this changeset is in. You really should... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-26 02:53 | stevea | I have edited tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of things. As I've said you repeatedly, use way #s or node #s or relation #s like a big boy. | |
| 5 | 2019-04-26 02:55 | stevea | In short, if you can't write a bug report, what you call a bug (defect) can't be fixed, or only gets a vague bit closer because YOU were vague in the first place. | |
| 6 | 2019-04-26 09:42 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "gets a vague bit closer because YOU were vague in the first place."Well, in my defense I figured it would be enough to just add the comment to the changeset, because I didn't notice you had done hundreds of edits in one change. So I assumed it would be obvious. Also, because they... | |
| 68334666 by stevea @ 2019-03-20 12:49 | 1 | 2019-04-20 11:34 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Rocky crags behind peoples houses aren't parks. This park in particular doesn't extend along the back of the rocks like you have it. It only takes up a very small area by the road. If you want to map the rest as a beach, cool, but its not where the park goes. |
| 2 | 2019-04-21 00:21 | stevea | There are two relations, 9415427 and 9415331. This is likely incorrect and an oversight, I am examining both how best to conflate both relations into a single one and how to tag it with your concerns. It appears the northerly one is colloquially known as "Santa Maria's Beach" and wh... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-21 01:03 | stevea | Now rendering, let's see if I got it right, though the renderer is only an aid, not the ultimate authority on whether or not the data are correct. | |
| 4 | 2019-04-21 01:04 | stevea | Relation ...331 remains, ...427 was deleted. | |
| 5 | 2019-04-26 02:44 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "I understand you wish for there to be a wholesale conversion of potentially every park in California to not be tagged leisure=park"Hhhmmm not sure where I said that, or how asking about a few specific parks out of potentially millions equates to "every park in California." L... | |
| 6 | 2019-04-26 02:48 | stevea | YOU said "wholesale conversion," not me."A few days since I wrote what?" Where? Chase your own damn tail. | |
| 7 | 2019-04-26 09:35 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "YOU said "wholesale conversion," not me."No you did. In the comment you made 5 days ago. Four comments up from here (or actually 5 after I post this), in the start of the third paragraph. Jeez. | |
| 2321758 by stevea @ 2009-08-31 04:30 | 1 | 2019-04-20 11:53 | Adamant1 ♦222 | This is just a small grassy area going to the beach. It's highly questionable if it's a park. Otherwise, every spot on the planet with a little grass and a bench is. I also now for sure that Thirteenth Avenue County Park isn't actually a park, because it's mapped on top of a ... |
| 2 | 2019-04-21 01:22 | stevea | Wow, a ten year old node from Ian Dees' GNIS node import which nine years ago was changed by me. OSM got a LOT of mileage out of that, and with minimal fuss!But since Adamant1 is fussy here and now, I discovered (from here, http://www.scparks.com/Home/Parks/ParkFinder.aspx , you might want... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-21 01:29 | stevea | I did not locate the Thirteenth Avenue node, Ian did ten years ago. However, in addition to performing the same three operations noted above I did to "Twelfth" (operator, no leisure tag, renaming properly based on ParkFinder) the node was also moved about ten meters southwesterly to be on... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-21 05:45 | Adamant1 ♦222 | It was there a while ago, but it seems someone dealt with it. Probably you to hide your bad mapping. As far as this goes, why wait for someone else to fix it if we can just do it ourselves. That's the whole point in this. Also, I don't appreciate you pointlessly about being fussy. Your... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-26 03:00 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Thanks for taking care of it. | |
| 6 | 2019-04-26 03:06 | stevea | You are welcome. Keep up politeness, it can and does redeem you.I haven't bad mapping 99% of the time. 1% of the time I have bad mapping. That is OK, we (OSM) corrects our mistakes; we are human.If I say you are 99% vituperative, yet by thanking me I say you are 1% polite by thanking... | |
| 7 | 2019-04-26 04:07 | stevea | In short, "what you paint, ought to be good." | |
| 8 | 2019-04-26 09:22 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "That is OK, we (OSM) corrects our mistakes; we are human."I fully agree. It's to bad you didn't apply that during all the bad mouthing of me you were doing, but such is life. At least you are now and it's better late than never."There is a long, slow, hill to c... | |
| 68326883 by stevea @ 2019-03-20 09:39 | 1 | 2019-04-20 11:36 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Not a park. It's someone back yard. |
| 2 | 2019-04-21 01:11 | stevea | I've owned property for many years which includes nearly 200 feet of creek which are part of a "riparian corridor," also quite literally "my backyard" (private ownership residential real property). Only once in 17 years have I have heard hikers down there, they said "w... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-26 07:34 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I'll address the other stuff later, but maybe the fact that you can't tell which park I mean without me providing a node number goes to show that parks are over mapped around here. Just a thought. Btw, if you don't mind I'd like to transfer some of these changeset discussions... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-26 07:36 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Then I could also put the note on the specific place that's being discussed so there wouldn't be any confusion or anything on where exactly we are talking about. | |
| 46827429 by stevea @ 2017-03-14 00:54 | 1 | 2019-04-20 10:54 | Adamant1 ♦222 | So from what I can tell, "Lighthouse Field State Beach" is the beach area, which should just be tagged as a beach. Then the rest of this park area is actually a few different things. Mainly an unamed park to the north of West Cliff Drive and then another area to the right of the beach. Whi... |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 18:05 | stevea | No, what you call "the beach area" is the "southern polygon" of this STATE PARK (what I and locals call it, the Department of State Parks and Recreation names the whole a State Beach, though only a small fraction of it IS beach), a very carefully constructed polygon made of of no... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-26 02:26 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I'm not going to parse through your needlessly long message at this point, but its still doubled tagged. There should only be one thing tagged as "Lighthouse Field State Beach." As there's only thing called that in real life. Remember the "one element one tag" rule or w... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-26 02:29 | stevea | Anything that fits on one screen (and a narrow leftward column of it, at that) isn't "needlessly long." Anybody (but you?) could agree to that, but, oh, yeah, you can't write something without being inflammatory, can you?Map. Express your thoughts in the data structures whi... | |
| 69167212 by stevea @ 2019-04-13 02:07 | 1 | 2019-04-20 10:37 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Where's this zoning.pdf that shows Quaker Center as a park that you speak of? |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 17:20 | stevea | It was published by the Santa Cruz County GIS department circa 2009. Please read our county wiki for further history and the reasoning behind this, where Quaker Center is mentioned by name. After a 2009 hike consisting of user:nmixter, userApo42 and me, nmixter's import of SCCGIS's landu... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-22 00:30 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I already read it and there was no mention of parks or beaches in it that I could find. Let alone this particular place. Although, I might have missed it, but probably not. As far as the bestofOSM.org award goes, I'm pretty sure that was for "coverage" more than accuracy. As I hig... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-22 20:08 | stevea | "Please read our county wiki for further history and the reasoning behind this, where Quaker Center is mentioned by name." | |
| 5 | 2019-04-23 03:16 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I misplaced the link and it's not showing up in search for some reason. Can you provide it again? | |
| 68158641 by stevea @ 2019-03-15 02:12 | 1 | 2019-04-20 10:40 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park, a good example of your crappy tagging practices. It's a state park, which you know because it says so in the name, but you have it tagged as a national park instead of protected area + protection class5. Probably so you can keep the leisure=park tag on it. |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 17:39 | stevea | Nope, you assume wrong. This is tagged boundary=national_park because it is a state park, and as states are sovereign in the USA. This is a well-established practice on state parks (and other state lands), especially as they have "equivalent or better protection to national parks," as it... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-22 01:06 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Well, I mean, not that well established and also not as specific as boundary=protected_area + class5. Which specifically says its for state parks, but whatever. The boundary=natiional_park tag says "some states" consider their parks national parks. It's not specific about which states... | |
| 68316730 by stevea @ 2019-03-20 01:51 | 1 | 2019-04-20 11:00 | Adamant1 ♦222 | This whole thing is weird. You have it tagged as a beach, with no park tag, but then you have it tagged as park:type=state_beach. You can't use a park:type tag if there's no park tag. It's completely nonsensical. It should just be a beach. You should get rid of the double tagged green... |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 18:28 | stevea | What "whole thing"? I have tagged WHAT as a beach? Be specific (as to a way # or relation #) and this community will (better) know what you are talking about.Where does it say we "can't use a park:type tag" on what hundreds of millions of speakers of American English ... | |
| 69093904 by stevea @ 2019-04-10 18:52 | 1 | 2019-04-20 10:42 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Same for this one. I'm definitely removing the leisure=park tag on it and going with the newer protected area tagging. |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 17:46 | stevea | I don't know what "same for this one means," it is an incomplete sentence about an apparently incomplete action. WHAT "one"? | |
| 10570780 by stevea @ 2012-02-02 19:58 | 1 | 2019-04-15 09:16 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,627 | Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1746636 ? |
| 69018171 by stevea @ 2019-04-08 18:18 | 1 | 2019-04-09 01:26 | Wilmaps ♦7 | This looks great. Should the similar polygon overlapping Lower Moore Creek Natural Reserve be deleted as well? |
| 2 | 2019-04-09 01:41 | stevea | If you give me a specific "way link," like https://www.osm.org/way/42472884, I'll take a look. You might read our County wiki at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Local_Conventions which says that the campus Natural Reserves are specifically tagged "natural... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-10 21:06 | Wilmaps ♦7 | This https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671666936 is the way I was referring to, it looks like it was created around the same time as this deleted way. Seems a bit unnecessary considering that area was already tagged as Lower Moore Creek Natural Reserve. To add to this the same user who created t... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-10 22:02 | stevea | Yes, LMCNR being tagged natural=wood does make this polygon redundant, especially as our County wiki makes this clear. However, not everybody reads our local wiki when editing locally (especially Helmchen42, who I believe is in Germany). Ideally, there shouldn't be "local conventions&quo... | |
| 68710367 by stevea @ 2019-03-30 21:37 | 1 | 2019-04-08 12:19 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,could you explain the meaning of this rectangle?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/680619997Thanks! |
| 2 | 2019-04-08 17:27 | stevea | Fixed with better tagging, including a source tag (which I thought I put on the changeset, but I didn't, as this "snuck in").It is about 16 hectares of Land Trust-protected land and now is tagged boundary=protected_area + protect_class=7.So that I might better find any others ... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-08 17:30 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi Steve,you used a strange tag "MNG_AGENCY_TYP" that was not used before. I'm checking the keys in the database for obvious errors based on the list of tags from TagInfo:http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htmI still have to remarks:"ACRES" should not be in... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-08 17:46 | stevea | Jan: These ALL_CAPS tags are from the CPAD shapefile and I agree with you should be better logically-mapped to OSM tags where possible. See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Parks for at least some information about CPAD. The ACRES tag is a vestige, you or I can delete it wi... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-08 17:56 | stevea | By the way, it doesn't always happen this way (the Land Trust might simply continue to protect the land "in perpetuity," but it happens enough to mention that this is how (state, county) parks, open space preserves and similar kinds of lands around here grow, piece by piece. In other... | |
| 6 | 2019-04-08 18:17 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Alright, if this is correct everything is fine. I just wondered if it is correct or a mistake. | |
| 7 | 2019-04-08 18:26 | stevea | The MNG_AGENCY_TYP should have (and has) become governance_type (thank you). The boundary and protect_class keys were wrongly omitted and have been added (thank you).So, in short, "thank you!" for helping to correct at least a couple of minor mistakes. As I say in my Mapper of the Mo... | |
| 68737158 by stevea @ 2019-03-31 22:36 | 1 | 2019-04-03 20:58 | cdruck ♦6 | Hi stevea,I'm not sure if you noticed, but I think something glitched with this changeset. There is a huge chunk of unattached points with no tags along a portion of the Palo Alto city boundary. I'm not sure what went wrong, but I thought I should bring this to your attention. Here is ... |
| 2 | 2019-04-03 21:36 | stevea | First, thank you for calling what appears wrong to me so politely. I reloaded relation/1544955 into my JOSM browser and I found that there is a single point in that relation which had the role "label" instead of the more proper "admin_centre." I have changed this to admin_centr... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-03 21:43 | stevea | Ah, I see what you mean about the ONE node you specify, but I'm now in a better process of discovering any others that exist and clean them up. It's a tricky "changeset inclusion" algorithm I'm applying. Stay tuned, I'm working on it now. This channel is fine for com... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-03 21:58 | stevea | Yes, there a whole bunch of unconnected nodes not "tied together" by a way along San Francisquito Creek. I have no idea why this happened, though I suspect a bug in the JOSM editor: version 14824 which I am using and is current has had several problems I've notice (but not yet repor... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-03 22:18 | stevea | OK, I think I got them all, but if you find more, please let me know. -Steve | |
| 6 | 2019-04-03 22:30 | cdruck ♦6 | Thanks for getting on this so quickly! I did a quick look around the area and I did see that there are still a handful of nodes (though not as dense as before) south of El Camino along the city boundary. This string of nodes that I still see are between these 2 nodes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/n... | |
| 7 | 2019-04-03 22:52 | stevea | Sure, Chris: cleaning up OSM messes is one of my long-time undertakings in the project, especially when the mess is MINE!I deleted those two nodes (thanks for your specificity), though I couldn't find any others. Perhaps if you tell me your method for discovering these, I can delete them ... | |
| 8 | 2019-04-04 19:40 | cdruck ♦6 | Thanks for taking care of that! I will let you know if I come across anything else.Best, Chris | |
| 63773675 by stevea @ 2018-10-22 21:28 | 1 | 2019-03-25 01:54 | Benny Goodman ♦19 | Dear Steve,why have you deleted the Evergreen Branch relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3936011 ?? |
| 2 | 2019-03-25 02:50 | stevea | Hi Benny: Whew, this was five months ago and I barely remember doing so, however, obviously I did. It looks like my changeset comment became a source tag (I didn't know that happened, now I do), so it isn't helpful in the usual regard that I can "simply re-check my source."... | |
| 68113103 by stevea @ 2019-03-13 20:15 | 1 | 2019-03-17 16:43 | glebius ♦17 | Hi! You just deleted Comstock Mill Rd. May be something else as well. |
| 2 | 2019-03-17 16:49 | glebius ♦17 | You again have drawn Soquel Demo Forest polygon to what your outdated documents say rather than to reflect reality. Again multiple private lots are declared SDF. | |
| 3 | 2019-03-17 16:50 | glebius ♦17 | Robinwood Lane deleted, too. | |
| 4 | 2019-03-18 12:11 | stevea | Gleb, I have fixed to the best of my ability Comstock Mill Road and Robinwood Lane.Additionally, I'm trying to do the right thing by using the absolutely latest data from SCCGIS (see out County wiki page): the "version 5" data I use are dated 2/9/2019. Those don't seem like... | |
| 67724915 by stevea @ 2019-03-02 22:24 | 1 | 2019-03-10 15:44 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,what does "name:direction" mean? This tag is not used in any other place.Thanks,Jan |
| 2 | 2019-03-10 18:36 | stevea | Hi Jan:This was a pretty large edit (geographically) and had many elements edited. Which specific datum had that name:direction tag? (Node, way or relation number?) I agree this is a non-standard tag (I didn't add it) and will remove it once I know which element it is on. Thanks. | |
| 3 | 2019-03-10 18:41 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,here they are: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GPnBefore your edit it was "name_direction" - I don't know what this means either. | |
| 4 | 2019-03-10 19:04 | stevea | Fixed. The name_direction tag is a mangled version of a tag from the USA's (problem-ridden) TIGER import of roads and rail. There are some left in Southern California. It is estimated that USA OSM volunteers will clean up TIGER by about 2045. (Sigh). | |
| 67630480 by stevea @ 2019-02-27 20:32 | 1 | 2019-02-28 10:14 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,it looks like something went wrong with your latest edits, there are 26 areas with very strange tags: BASEDTL=One single-family dwelling, one second dwelling unit, home occupations, not more than 2 cats and 2 dogs, community facilities. BASENM=Single-Family Residential BASEZN=R... |
| 2 | 2019-02-28 18:36 | stevea | Your assumption is mistaken; there is nothing wrong with my latest edits. They are quite intentional and what you call "very strange" are explainable if/as you read our local wiki which has documented the entry of several versions of these polygons for almost ten years. There is a long a... | |
| 3 | 2019-02-28 18:39 | mueschel ♦6,565 | I can't find any of the tags I mentioned on the Wiki page you linked or anywhere else in the OSM Wiki. | |
| 4 | 2019-02-28 18:40 | mueschel ♦6,565 | (excluding 'Zoning' and 'upload_version', they are mentioned) | |
| 5 | 2019-02-28 19:01 | stevea | These tags on these polygons derive from tags on the government data. If you follow the instructions on the wiki page to access the data (where it says "scroll to Zoning") you can further scroll to "Attributes" where there are some clickable web buttons for each tag. (Some of t... | |
| 6 | 2019-02-28 19:04 | mueschel ♦6,565 | If your community thinks these are important tags, it's fine to have them in the database.Nonetheless, they should be documented.I only noticed them because they are new and were not used at all before your edit. If such tags appear in a changeset, they are usually added by mistake - in... | |
| 7 | 2019-02-28 19:19 | stevea | I can certainly update our local wiki to better document these tags and capture the spirit of this conversation. I agree that would help avoid future confusion. I appreciate that you DID write a comment (here)! Sometimes it takes changeset comments to spark the dialog, a good attitude by mature m... | |
| 8 | 2019-02-28 19:26 | stevea | Now completed/documented in the wiki link noted above. Again, thank you, mueschel. | |
| 67211361 by stevea @ 2019-02-15 00:07 | 1 | 2019-02-18 05:10 | joeybab3 ♦24 | Real mature |
| 2 | 2019-02-18 09:35 | stevea | The net result of your edit is to have turned nearly ten years of university editing (of its boundary) into a "version 1" of the UCSC campus edge. That is not only immature, it is destructive to the history of edit improvements by many people over a long timeframe. Please stop the name c... | |
| 54440343 by stevea @ 2017-12-07 19:15 | 1 | 2019-01-09 01:47 | doug_sfba ♦19 | Steve, this big multipolygon, tagged landuse=forest (ie, forestRY), at it's top-right corner, overlaps a considerable chunk of MROSD's Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. This is clearly incorrect - MROSD isn't doing forestry on these lands. I was about to trim the overlapping part from the... |
| 2 | 2019-01-09 13:25 | stevea | Thanks for the heads-up, doug, you've been doing great work here and I'm waiting (and waiting) for SCCGIS to get their act together and come out with newer (multi)polygons. Maybe in 2020 or 2021, I am told.This polygons turned into a bit of a bone of contention between me and glebius,... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-10 22:54 | doug_sfba ♦19 | Thanks, Steve. Change made. Check it out at your convenience. BTW, a decade or so back, that corner of BCR was a Christmas tree farm, and there was selective timber harvesting beyond that, so the original "forest" boundary was probably correct back before MROSD bought the area.Cheers... | |
| 65216649 by stevea @ 2018-12-05 20:11 | 1 | 2018-12-06 09:05 | Carnildo ♦905 | I don't think "level crossing" is the correct tag for a railroad that runs down the middle of the street the way the WIM Industrial Spur does in Palouse. |
| 2 | 2018-12-06 20:03 | stevea | Thanks, I reverted these back to not being level crossings. This was an "automated" (all ten of them at once) Validator "Fix" that I rather blithely did at once without realizing they were down the middle of the street, but you're right. | |
| 55115119 by stevea @ 2018-01-02 23:54 | 1 | 2018-11-30 17:13 | maxerickson ♦234 | Does Santa Cruz County maintain a dataset showing the county boundary out in the Bay?Also, it's better to maintain as much object history as possible when doing such edits, such as reusing any existing county relation.It's not absolutely critical of course, but it helps make sense ... |
| 63520651 by stevea @ 2018-10-14 21:26 | 1 | 2018-11-07 13:26 | datamongers ♦55 | Im not 100% sure, but im under the impression this branch(all the way to darby) was called the Bitterroot Branch |
| 2 | 2018-11-07 16:25 | stevea | Changed. Of course, you are welcome to make such changes, too; noted in our wiki (https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Montana/Railroads) are both (about this rail spur) that "name is speculative" and in general, "improvements are welcome."Actually, this sort of local knowledge is one ... | |
| 50766165 by stevea @ 2017-08-01 22:47 | 1 | 2018-10-31 07:14 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi! Please review https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/512161070Both Bing and ESRI show a fence between the 1st and 2nd node, so it seems impossible to cross the roads there. I also don't think that you should copy data from a County Bike map, this is probably not a legal source. |
| 2 | 2018-10-31 07:16 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Ah, forgot to say that highway=crossing should not be used on ways, only on nodes. That was the reason why I looked at it in the first place. | |
| 3 | 2018-10-31 18:18 | stevea | I have lived and ridden my bike) in the area for decades, and always found this a "tricky" bicycle area. I have driven this overpass thousands of times and only two days ago noted that from Farimount for the entirety of the "trumpet interchange" (so-called by Caltrans engineers ... | |
| 4 | 2018-10-31 18:28 | stevea | My turn for corrections to my previous:The sign says "Pedestrians, bicycles an motor-driven cycles prohibited." This is a common sign in California at freeway entrances.I should have said you"think" I "SHOULDN'T" copy from a County Bike Map, however I happ... | |
| 5 | 2018-10-31 18:35 | stevea | Sensibly, the City of Santa Cruz has seen fit to put sharrows (cycleway=shared_lanes) on Fairmount Avenue, so this makes a reasonable connector to include in lcn 45 to get across the freeway at Branciforte Drive (which again, I've done thousands of times myself). It all makes sense now.ste... | |
| 6 | 2018-10-31 18:39 | GerdP ♦2,751 | OK, I've also removed the highway=crossing tags from the node, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64056131 | |
| 7 | 2018-10-31 18:48 | stevea | I'm surprised you or I didn't get an edit conflict. That area is really "all kerb" (or curb as we Americans say) and there is no crossing there, whether on a node or a way, I deleted the way entirely!As my comments used to say about this area/crossing before I deleted them a... | |
| 63497202 by stevea @ 2018-10-14 00:05 | 1 | 2018-10-14 08:03 | Carnildo ♦905 | I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but you've tagged some sections of rail with the tags "Lincoln=County" and "Port=Authority". |
| 2 | 2018-10-14 17:42 | stevea | Terribly sorry, that was a JOSM error on my part. After 13,000+ edits, I'm likely to make a mistake here or there, but I don't think I make many. Thank you very much for noticing this and bringing it to my attention! I have fixed the error by deleting the erroneous tags.Happy mappin... | |
| 58076430 by stevea @ 2018-04-13 21:12 | 1 | 2018-10-08 17:27 | glebius ♦17 | Hi!I got question on couple paths. First, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/579705809 Does it really exist? or have you traced someones GPS trace?I'm asking because this path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475700792 was initially mapped by me, and it intentionally didn't connect... |
| 2 | 2018-10-08 21:44 | stevea | Hello. It was about six months ago I was working on "consolidating multiple sources" of map data (maybe Strava heat map, maybe others' GPS tracks, maybe others...) and so I can't remember exactly. I do remember thinking that 579705809 seemed like "the best compromise for ... | |
| 56254334 by stevea @ 2018-02-11 02:52 | 1 | 2018-09-28 17:35 | glebius ♦17 | Hi! The natural=peak,ele=602 point here is completely wrong. The whole area is around 400 meters high. |
| 2 | 2018-09-28 17:46 | stevea | You are absolutely right. I have changed it to a much-more accurate ele=419 value. Thank you for catching my error!Steve | |
| 61643447 by stevea @ 2018-08-14 02:51 | 1 | 2018-08-14 04:27 | Glassman ♦5,219 | What can I do to help? Last I checked, BR10 was okay. |
| 2 | 2018-08-14 04:31 | stevea | Thanks; I had a funky edit buffer with an error. It appears that USBR 10 and USBR 95 were conflated, as if 10 had a N-S spur to/through Mount Vernon, but I don't think it does, that segment is actually 95.So, now, 10 is "pretty much E-W" (without a N-S Mt. Vernon 'spur'... | |
| 3 | 2018-08-14 04:34 | Glassman ♦5,219 | I'll take a look at it but probably not for a couple of days. I'm currently out of the country. Tomorrow we are out exploring.I did make a change to one of the routes - I don't remember which, but I added a new roundabout. the relations all check good when I had finished. | |
| 4 | 2018-08-14 04:51 | stevea | Not to mention we are pretty long in the tooth (months, not weeks or days) for Andy to update OCM in North America. I've done my usual polite cajoling, it shouldn't be too long before we get some fresh tile updates. If you're reading, Andy, thanks in advance! Have fun exploring, Cl... | |
| 5 | 2018-08-15 21:24 | Glassman ♦5,219 | I fixed an open segment at the Anacortes Ferry Terminal. Looks like a similar problem where it connect from the ferry to Vancouver Island. I'll work on that.Also - can you confirm that USBR10 has a spur that extends into Mount Vernon? I'm not surprised but wanted to make sure it belong... | |
| 6 | 2018-08-15 21:36 | stevea | Great; thanks for the "ferry fix" (es).I literally just finished a lengthy email to Kerry Irons (ACA) about how the 5-mile "USBR 10 SPUR" (intended to serve as a multi-modal bike/rail connection) was in WSDOT's 2014 USBR 10 AASHTO application (and it was approved, of cou... | |
| 57473465 by stevea @ 2018-03-24 01:24 | 1 | 2018-03-26 16:59 | Adamant1 ♦222 | 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... |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 18:45 | stevea | A very good suggestion! I've now added a Note with the same text; thank you. SteveA | |
| 54314537 by stevea @ 2017-12-04 01:05 | 1 | 2018-02-11 02:02 | glebius ♦17 | Hi! I'm pretty sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/193310452 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? |
| 2 | 2018-02-11 02:07 | stevea | 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.Done!SteveA | |
| 3 | 2018-02-11 02:17 | glebius ♦17 | Thanks! | |
| 4 | 2018-02-11 02:26 | stevea | 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 b... | |
| 47522893 by stevea @ 2017-04-06 22:37 | 1 | 2018-02-11 01:32 | glebius ♦17 | 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."Bac... |
| 2 | 2018-02-11 01:46 | stevea | 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... | |
| 17230416 by stevea @ 2013-08-05 16:47 | 1 | 2017-12-29 11:33 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park . I'll admit it's a few years since I've bee... |
| 2 | 2017-12-30 00:32 | stevea | 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 par... | |
| 54351698 by stevea @ 2017-12-05 02:55 | 1 | 2017-12-09 19:16 | mueschel ♦6,565 | Hi,these edits introduced several strange tags on 14 objects:GENERIC \tTPOBJECTID \t3276SHAPESTAre \t9.218000289160156E7SHAPESTLen \t84464.43847961596Zoning \tTPCould you check & fix this?Thanks, Jan |
| 2 | 2017-12-09 21:13 | stevea | No fixes necessary, they are part of an "official" (local government) import, now in its third revision since the initial 2009 v1 import.See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landuse | |
| 3 | 2017-12-09 21:14 | stevea | 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... | |
| 4 | 2017-12-09 21:38 | mueschel ♦6,565 | The tags I mentioned are new to OSM, not used before. And they are not mentioned on your Wiki page as well. | |
| 5 | 2017-12-09 21:46 | stevea | 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... | |
| 22642499 by stevea @ 2014-05-30 17:31 | 1 | 2017-10-03 13:11 | HubMiner ♦271 | Hi, I wanted to link this route 37 to something official, but didn't see anything online except this https://www.adventurecycling.org/default/assets/File/USBRS/USBR37IllinoisMap.pdfDo you have any other references? |
| 2 | 2017-10-03 18:28 | stevea | 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 | |
| 3 | 2017-10-05 02:34 | HubMiner ♦271 | Hi, I was hoping for something online. Perhaps a Wikipedia page will get created one. Thanks for getting back! | |
| 4 | 2017-10-05 03:07 | stevea | Try here:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/idtfhretq0urelu/AADNm6RwNePgBHKkKZphkYMja?dl=0and click the USBR 37 IL link.Cheers, SteveA. | |
| 5 | 2017-10-05 13:07 | HubMiner ♦271 | 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? | |
| 6 | 2017-10-05 17:44 | stevea | 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. | |
| 7 | 2017-10-05 20:12 | stevea | 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.See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/... | |
| 8 | 2017-10-12 01:43 | HubMiner ♦271 | 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. | |
| 9 | 2017-10-12 01:49 | stevea | 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. | |
| 50956248 by stevea @ 2017-08-08 22:37 | 1 | 2017-08-25 08:59 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi!I've noticed that you sometime usehighway=driveway instead of highway=service + service=drivewayIs this intended? |
| 2 | 2017-08-25 18:31 | stevea | 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. | |
| 50392843 by stevea @ 2017-07-19 01:03 | 1 | 2017-08-23 20:57 | muralito ♦2,016 | It's ok to be boundary=administrative and not have admin_level=*?Should'nt it be boundary="stastistical" or other user defined value? |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 21:11 | stevea | 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 no... | |
| 50885732 by stevea @ 2017-08-06 13:46 | 1 | 2017-08-07 07:19 | oormilavinod ♦309 | 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 !! |
| 2 | 2017-08-07 15:36 | stevea | 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 caref... | |
| 3 | 2017-08-07 16:36 | iandees ♦723 | 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: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/50885732. I suspect they thought you created it, when in fact you just modif... | |
| 4 | 2017-08-07 17:31 | stevea | Ian, please check your "missives Inbox." | |
| 5 | 2017-08-08 03:49 | oormilavinod ♦309 | 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... | |
| 6 | 2017-08-08 18:25 | stevea | 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 | |
| 50950386 by stevea @ 2017-08-08 17:43 | 1 | 2017-08-08 17:47 | stevea | Oops, used an old changeset comment. It should be "Meadows SW of Gilroy." |
| 14303214 by stevea @ 2012-12-17 08:48 | 1 | 2017-07-04 21:05 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | 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... |
| 2 | 2017-07-05 08:49 | stevea | 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 H... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-05 09:09 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | 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... | |
| 4 | 2017-07-05 09:32 | stevea | 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... | |
| 5 | 2017-07-05 10:15 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Just to be clear, I believe we’re talking about these signs:https://www.flickr.com/photos/navymailman/5637080430As opposed to these signs, which I think do call for using the name tag:https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/sign-pacific-co... | |
| 6 | 2017-07-05 10:19 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | Incidentally, the Mapbox Navigation SDK is open source, and so is the routing software that powers it:https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/https://github.com/mapbox/mapbox-navigation-ios/I understand that it’d be inappropriate to tailor our mapping to any particular router, b... | |
| 7 | 2017-07-05 18:37 | stevea | Thanks for the detailed explanation, Minh, though I believe you walk a very fine line here. | |
| 3242052 by stevea @ 2009-11-29 02:31 | 1 | 2017-03-20 19:29 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | Hello! What is the meaning of your different ways only marked with name=Sandhills? Please see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nEs |
| 2 | 2017-03-20 19:39 | stevea | 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... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-20 19:49 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | Did you read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural? | |
| 4 | 2017-03-20 19:56 | stevea | 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... | |
| 5 | 2017-03-20 20:15 | user_5359 ♦19,362 | I see some similarities with a dune. Did you know the Dune of Pilat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_of_Pilat, http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2244861#map=15/44.5888/-1.2179 )?The parts with fossils can be marked with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:geological%3Dpalaeontological... | |
| 6 | 2017-03-20 20:27 | stevea | 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... | |
| 7 | 2017-03-20 20:38 | stevea | Now I believe that geological=outcrop might be about right, but it's still pretty rough. | |
| 8 | 2017-03-20 20:49 | stevea | 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! | |
| 46720785 by stevea @ 2017-03-09 20:13 | 1 | 2017-03-10 09:27 | mueschel ♦6,565 | 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?JanExamples: ACCESS_TYP=Open Access ACRES=48.743 AGNCY_ID=1328 AGNCY_LEV=City AGNCY_NAME=Scotts Valley, City... |
| 2 | 2017-03-10 17:34 | stevea | 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 C... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-10 17:56 | mueschel ♦6,565 | 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... | |
| 4 | 2017-03-10 18:06 | stevea | 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... | |
| 41374732 by stevea @ 2016-08-10 19:58 | 1 | 2016-08-11 00:13 | schleuss ♦13 | Whoo! |
| 2 | 2016-08-11 00:37 | stevea | 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!) | |
| 38772657 by stevea @ 2016-04-22 02:30 | 1 | 2016-04-22 09:04 | Richard ♦220 | 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�... |
| 26152086 by stevea @ 2014-10-17 17:40 | 1 | 2015-06-23 14:36 | mstriewe ♦52 | This changeset added "bicycle=shoulder" to some highways, which is used nowhere else. Did you mean "cycleway=shoulder" instead (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Other_values)? |
| 2 | 2015-06-23 18:26 | stevea | OK, I believe I have changed all bicycle=shoulder tags to cycleway=shoulder. | |
| 3 | 2016-03-28 17:46 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | 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... | |
| 29839421 by stevea @ 2015-03-29 23:40 | 1 | 2015-08-11 18:29 | maxerickson ♦234 | 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:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335497374 |
| 2 | 2015-08-11 18:59 | stevea | 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. | |
| 3 | 2015-08-11 19:55 | maxerickson ♦234 | 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:https://www.openstreetma... | |
| 4 | 2015-08-12 00:59 | stevea | To which someone do you refer? | |
| 5 | 2015-08-12 01:04 | stevea | g246020? | |
| 6 | 2015-08-12 02:08 | maxerickson ♦234 | Yeah, that's what I meant. | |
| 7 | 2016-01-06 21:12 | maxerickson ♦234 | 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 s... | |
| 8 | 2016-01-06 21:45 | stevea | 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 comm... | |
| 9 | 2016-01-06 22:07 | maxerickson ♦234 | 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 bein... | |
| 22153054 by stevea @ 2014-05-05 19:20 | 1 | 2015-06-20 04:24 | jremillard ♦18 | admin_level=4 on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/187118 ? State parts are not administrative boundaries? |
| 2 | 2015-06-20 06:28 | stevea | 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. | |
| 30194144 by stevea @ 2015-04-13 17:55 | 1 | 2015-04-26 05:23 | Minh Nguyen ♦564 | 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. |
| 2 | 2015-04-26 16:08 | stevea | 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. | |
| 29723896 by stevea @ 2015-03-25 10:36 | 1 | 2015-03-25 20:27 | emacsen ♦142 | 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... |
| 2 | 2015-03-26 01:53 | emacsen ♦142 | 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. | |
| 3 | 2015-03-26 02:07 | emacsen ♦142 | 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 ... | |
| 4 | 2015-03-26 02:13 | stevea | Hello Serge:The "infrastructure on rail" tag of "highspeed=yes" is documented as widely used on the OpenRailwayMap (ORM) wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Tracks It says "Is this line a high-speed line (with permissible speeds greater... | |
| 5 | 2015-03-26 03:57 | emacsen ♦142 | 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, th... | |
| 6 | 2015-03-26 05:54 | stevea | 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... | |
| 7 | 2015-03-26 17:20 | stevea | 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 t... | |
| 8 | 2015-04-01 04:47 | RussNelson ♦47 | 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. | |
| 9 | 2015-04-01 10:04 | emacsen ♦142 | 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. | |
| 10 | 2015-04-01 19:23 | stevea | 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... | |
| 11 | 2015-04-01 20:46 | emacsen ♦142 | 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 s... | |
| 12 | 2015-04-01 21:01 | pnorman ♦317 | 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 ther... | |
| 13 | 2015-04-01 21:13 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | 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 poss... | |
| 14 | 2015-04-01 21:57 | stevea | 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. ... | |
| 15 | 2015-04-02 09:06 | Nakaner ♦3,147 | 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... | |
| 16 | 2015-04-07 18:02 | stevea | 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 ... | |
| 17 | 2015-04-07 18:12 | emacsen ♦142 | > 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 somewhatWhy don't you just do what everyone can agree is correct, and tag the route, rather ... | |
| 18 | 2015-04-07 18:29 | stevea | 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... | |
| 19 | 2015-04-07 18:40 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | 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... | |
| 20 | 2015-04-07 19:04 | stevea | 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... | |
| 21 | 2015-04-07 19:12 | Nakaner ♦3,147 | 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... | |
| 22 | 2015-04-07 19:14 | Nakaner ♦3,147 | 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... | |
| 23 | 2015-04-08 02:43 | stevea | 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. | |
| 24 | 2015-04-09 00:40 | stevea | 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... | |
| 25 | 2015-04-10 16:55 | stevea | OpenRailwayMap's Infrastructure and Maxspeed styles now render these changes accurately. I consider this resolved. | |
| 29739088 by stevea @ 2015-03-25 21:03 | 1 | 2015-03-25 21:37 | emacsen ♦142 | 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? |
| 2 | 2015-03-26 02:15 | stevea | 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: http://www.caltrain.com/schedules/weekdaytimetable.htmlIf you would like me to endeavor to be quite exact with web links and exact publication names... | |
| 28194788 by stevea @ 2015-01-16 19:53 | 1 | 2015-01-18 22:45 | Nakaner ♦3,147 | Is "(proposed)" really part of the name? It should be tagged proposed:railway=station + name=Sonoma County Airport. |
| 28241366 by stevea @ 2015-01-18 22:10 | 1 | 2015-01-18 22:44 | Nakaner ♦3,147 | "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. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/213371633Best regards, Michael (one of the OpenR... |