Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-12-09 19:16:04 UTCmueschel Hi,
these edits introduced several strange tags on 14 objects:
GENERIC \tTP
OBJECTID \t3276
SHAPESTAre \t9.218000289160156E7
SHAPESTLen \t84464.43847961596
Zoning \tTP

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

See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landuse
32017-12-09 21:14:55 UTCstevea As has become the custom over the years as our attitudes and conventions towards imports changes (and improves), these tags will be reduced or removed altogether in the v4 update to these data, anticipated in 2019 or 2020. As per the "Multipolygonization" discussion on talk-us in November...
42017-12-09 21:38:18 UTCmueschel The tags I mentioned are new to OSM, not used before. And they are not mentioned on your Wiki page as well.
52017-12-09 21:46:40 UTCstevea Yes, SHAPE_STAr and SHAPE_STLe are mentioned in the wiki. Look, this is an eight-year old import with data that are carefully curated, documented and promised to not only be updated (with v4) but also improved with the next version (via multipolygonization). In the initial import (messy as documen...
12017-10-11 19:49:24 UTCstevea bdiscoe: Please redact this farmland removal polygon, or at least redact your changeset and update the polygon so it is landuse=residential.

If you read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landuse (paragraph six) you'll see that the County does zone every single hec...
22017-10-12 04:27:53 UTCbdiscoe Hi Steve, since you expressed concern, I took another look at this area in detail. It is a total mess. The so-labeled "farmland" was not just wood and residential, but also some meadow (redundant overlap), and adjacent to existing natural=wood which is, in turn, actually residential in pa...
32017-10-12 04:29:28 UTCbdiscoe As for "removing it without replacing it with anything better", if you have a large area marked "D" which is actually A, B, C, then removing the wrong "D" IS actually better, because it is actually less wrong.
42017-10-12 04:49:52 UTCstevea I don't think there is anything terribly wrong with meadow overlapping with other landuse, and nobody has said so in Santa Cruz County, where we have been doing this for at least 8 years. Look at Wilder Ranch State Park, what many have called "visually pleasing" (meadow overlapping with l...
52017-10-12 04:52:08 UTCbdiscoe I have now spend some time in the Happy Valley area to expand the natural=wood relation down from the hills to fill in where there is actually wood, which is most of the area left blank by the "farmland" removal. I also validated the relations to solve overlaps and degeneracies.
62017-10-12 04:56:33 UTCstevea Well, thanks for that; I'm watching. It's possible we posted Comments so temporally close together that we crossed each other, but I do await answers to my questions. Thank you in advance. SteveA
72017-10-12 05:02:19 UTCstevea However, if you "expand the wood" (e.g. as it appears you have from the east side of Happy Valley Road to its west side), you truly break many landuse semantics as published by our County GIS: landuse=forest really is timberland, natural=wood originated from "special_use" polygo...
82017-10-12 05:34:55 UTCbdiscoe "you can use Bing (and a guess and a prayer) to better define landuse than does our County GIS department?"

If the County is marking forest as non-forest, and non-forest as forest - which they clearly are here - then absolutely. Detail based on aerial is based on detail that is just wr...
92017-10-12 05:35:26 UTCbdiscoe (...is better than...)
102017-10-12 05:38:47 UTCbdiscoe Also, somebody foolishly imported fields like "Shape_area" which will be wrong the moment that somebody comes along to fix the polygons. What on earth is the point of that? Surely nobody expects general OSM users to update the useless "Shape_area" when the move the nodes into a...
112017-10-12 05:49:20 UTCbdiscoe Yes, I have read the "County Page". As for "nobody has said so in Santa Cruz County, where we have been doing this for at least 8 years", if nobody has pointed out that this data is mostly wrong, then it's only because nobody has looked, which is highly believable since there ap...
122017-10-12 05:51:20 UTCbdiscoe My recommendation:
1. Either remove all the bad landuse, or use a JOSM filter to hide it for step 2.
2. Align the roads and fix the road topology!
3. Only then, you can gradually start to add landuse, carefully, bit by bit, checking and correctly each batch before upload.
132017-10-12 18:49:09 UTCstevea bdiscoe: Your hostile and hyperbolic comments that "there appear to be no actual data here, ONLY IMPORTS" and "largely fictional" are unwelcome, untrue and show you to be a histrionic exaggerator. I have been mapping this county (lovingly, carefully, with my GPS, notebook and t...
142017-10-12 18:57:00 UTCstevea Regarding "fix the road topology," you will see (if you look, try http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-121.91947&lat=37.02996&zoom=12&fullscreen=true) that NOBODY has fixed more TIGER misalignments in this county besides me. By that Ito map, it is one of the most "blu...
152017-10-12 19:00:48 UTCstevea The answer to who "foolishly" imported the SHAPE... attributes is nmixter. He has been hugely admonished for a very sloppy import here, and I have literally spent YEARS cleaning it up. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the >3000 polygons he imported was visually and personally redacted in JOSM by m...
162017-10-13 01:48:09 UTCstevea I wait no longer to do what I have known to be the right thing to do since this dispute began: I'm redacting bdiscoe's polygon removal edits.

Sadly, and I have never done this with any other OSM member with whom I have "friended," I also remove him as my friend in this project. His ar...
172017-10-16 21:04:33 UTCstevea In the spirit of "pour calming oil over troubled waters," I offer that this dispute largely resulted from tangles among the complex issues of landuse and landcover. They are misunderstood, confusing and fraught with ambiguities. There are a plurality of tagging strategies and histories, ...
182017-10-22 06:12:52 UTCbdiscoe So, just to wrap this changeset discussion; it spun out of control to attempt discussion of a lot of things besides its subject, the changes herein. In cases where the local preference is for some unusual interpretation of OSM's tags, it's advisable to just leave it as-is. There is enough to fix i...
192017-10-22 16:59:07 UTCstevea In this controlled discussion (on my part), the changes herein WERE indeed the subject: it appears not listening to them nor parsing their consequences is one of the blithely scattered activities of bdiscoe as he attempts to keep his scores high on the leaderboard while he preys on other under-mapp...
12017-10-03 13:11:39 UTCg246020 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.pdf
Do you have any other references?
22017-10-03 18:28:50 UTCstevea Yes, I used the Illinois Department of Transportation's application to AASHTO. It is a nine page document with maps and route descriptors (turns and lengths). I can send it to you if as an attachment if you give me an email address. -SteveA
32017-10-05 02:34:31 UTCg246020 Hi, I was hoping for something online. Perhaps a Wikipedia page will get created one. Thanks for getting back!
42017-10-05 03:07:33 UTCstevea Try here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/idtfhretq0urelu/AADNm6RwNePgBHKkKZphkYMja?dl=0

and click the USBR 37 IL link.

Cheers, SteveA.
52017-10-05 13:07:18 UTCg246020 I double you want me to link OSM to your private Dropbox... :) Any change you want to create a wiki page for the route, based on docs you have?
62017-10-05 17:44:06 UTCstevea By "double" I think you mean "doubt" and by "change" do you mean "chance?"

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

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

See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/...
82017-10-12 01:43:20 UTCg246020 Hi, thanks again for proving the info. I reviewed the documents and the wiki osm page. Unfortunately I don't feel I have enough historical and high general info to put together a wikipedia page myself. Perhaps something will become available at a later time. Thanks for your help.
92017-10-12 01:49:10 UTCstevea You are welcome. Although I don't quite understand what it is that you are either missing or that you require to further complete whatever it is that you are trying to do.
12017-09-08 02:11:40 UTCstevea Bill, I do here and now ask what are your sources for putting in USBR 95 into California. This route isn't even proposed, and/or you may be conflating the ACA's route of a similar name to be a USBR 95 which is not even a Caltrans ballot before AASHTO.


Awaiting your reply, and these data (speci...
22017-10-05 23:45:22 UTCBill Sellin Hi Steve
You are correct - the USBR 95 has not yet been established by AASHTO, and may never have on street signage in many jurisdictions, but as the pacific coast was mapped as a bike route, and the Adventure Cycling Association version of the route differs, I was trying to clean up the USBR 95 in...
32017-10-06 21:34:28 UTCstevea Hi Bill: Yes, again, it is rather subtle and a bit complicated. There is a state of California route called PCBR, which is what OSM is trying to channel with this route. That is different than the ACA route by essentially the same name, which should NOT be entered into OSM, as it is commercial / ...
12017-09-08 02:46:05 UTCstevea Hello Bill. Please source the data you use to enter USBR 66 in California. I'm quite familiar with tagging this and I don't think you can tag a route as you have here: it is only an early sketch of a route, proposed, and not signed on the ground. Please explain your intentions. Thanks, SteveA.
22017-10-05 23:41:13 UTCBill Sellin Hi Steve
You are correct - the USBR 66 has not yet been established by AASHTO, and may never have omn street signage in many jurisdictions, but as the historic 66 was mapped as a bike route, and the Adventure Cycling Association version of route 66 differs, I was trying to clean up the USBR 66 in p...
32017-10-06 21:08:08 UTCstevea Hi Bill, thanks for your reply.

Please see our wiki page on this: https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System

ACA routes are proprietary and copyrighted and not compatible with OSM's ODbL (license). It's a long, long story. I have largely written that wiki, work with ACA...
42017-10-06 21:10:33 UTCstevea Or, maybe better, the wiki's Discussion section (tab at top).
12017-09-04 05:23:48 UTCstevea OSM does not name "private property" the way you have. Please remove these tags.
12017-08-31 18:58:42 UTCstevea Hi dwl-sdca: Might I ask you to read up on our wiki page for access=* before you use a tag like access=restricted on roads like these? The value "restricted" on the access tag isn't documented. Please consider changing this to access=no emergency=fire. Or, if it is truly private, acces...
12017-08-25 08:59:09 UTCGerdP Hi!
I've noticed that you sometime use
highway=driveway instead of highway=service + service=driveway
Is this intended?
22017-08-25 18:31:50 UTCstevea Whoops, no. Thank you for catching this! Of course, I'm perfectly OK with any correction that you might make to this. As well, I'll look out for any other, similar mistakes I have made and correct them.
12017-08-23 20:57:52 UTCmuralito It's ok to be boundary=administrative and not have admin_level=*?

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

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

What road, exactly did I "pull?" I am usually quite careful wh...
32017-08-07 16:36:39 UTCiandees Steve, if you look at the changeset via OSMCha (likely the tool that oormilavinod was looking at), you'll see that there's an "impossible angle" tag on the changeset: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/50885732. I suspect they thought you created it, when in fact you just modified the wa...
42017-08-07 17:31:08 UTCstevea Ian, please check your "missives Inbox."
52017-08-08 03:49:11 UTCoormilavinod hey stevea thanks for getting back iandees is right, i went by the OSMcha that flags the impossible angle. now i understand that the tags were the only ones that was modified by you . I shall look into the history more carefully now. thanks for bringing this to my attention. nice to know about you...
62017-08-08 18:25:47 UTCstevea Thanks for everybody's good communication here. They do put erasers on the ends of pencils, as we all make little errors now and then! (Don't sweat the small stuff; it's all small stuff). Happy mapping to you as well, stevea
12017-08-08 17:47:36 UTCstevea Oops, used an old changeset comment. It should be "Meadows SW of Gilroy."
12017-07-18 05:23:24 UTCstevea I think you should change (fix!) your tripplanner then. Not make changes to the map data which make a accurate tags no longer true. Please revert this change and fix your software, not tag the data with lies so you don't have to.
22017-07-19 21:45:27 UTCMinh Nguyen FWIW, a software fix is being tracked in <https://github.com/opentripplanner/OpenTripPlanner/issues/2471>.
32017-07-19 21:53:27 UTCstevea Nice work, Minh and everybody involved!
12017-07-04 21:05:30 UTCMinh Nguyen While “CHP Officer John Pedro Memorial Highway” may be signposted in a few spots, it isn’t signposted prominently or frequently enough for general usage. Changeset 50044505 moves it to the official_name tag and restores “Cabrillo Highway”, which is the legislatively def...
22017-07-05 08:49:25 UTCstevea Really, Minh? OK, if you think this is more correct. Are you sure you're not checking on many of or all my edits since 2009? I do live here and see the signs (I was just driving this stretch of highway TODAY), but if you want to "localize" this and call the whole stretch Cabrillo Highwa...
32017-07-05 09:09:57 UTCMinh Nguyen Haha, no, I’m not stalking you! :-D A coworker of mine pointed out how the Mapbox Navigation SDK was trying to say, “Continue on CA 1, CHP Officer John Pedro Memorial Highway, for 14 miles”. It took almost 7 seconds to say this mouthful, and the corresponding label in the UI shrank...
42017-07-05 09:32:26 UTCstevea So, am I understanding you to say is that tagging what the signs say is "wrong" (or less right than"on the ground verifiable") and that what the name tag SHOULD say for corporate consumers of OSM data (like Mapbox and Foursquare...) is what corporate consumers of OSM data like Ma...
52017-07-05 10:15:02 UTCMinh Nguyen No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Just to be clear, I believe we’re talking about these signs:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/navymailman/5637080430

As opposed to these signs, which I think do call for using the name tag:

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/sign-pacific-co...
62017-07-05 10:19:41 UTCMinh Nguyen Incidentally, the Mapbox Navigation SDK is open source, and so is the routing software that powers it:

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...
72017-07-05 18:37:09 UTCstevea Thanks for the detailed explanation, Minh, though I believe you walk a very fine line here.
12017-06-20 17:16:24 UTCstevea Your source tag is a bad link; please correct it. Also, this appears to be an import. Where are your Import Guidelines steps documented?
22017-06-20 18:44:27 UTCe*holtz The link works for me when I add as a new WMS imagery layer... Also, where does it say that this is an import? If I imported external data it was unintentional.
32017-06-20 19:00:52 UTCstevea OK, I loaded your link into JOSM as a WMS layer (thanks). I appreciate your clarification, as you have "realigned" my assumption that this is an import, rather it looks like you are simply using a WMS layer.

By the way, do you have any plans to trace more (or all) buildings in Santa Cr...
42017-06-20 19:13:32 UTCe*holtz Great, happy to clarify. I would like to trace more building footprints in Santa Cruz, probably just doing a few blocks at a time, but no specific plan or area I'm focused on.
12017-06-10 21:24:10 UTCTheDutchMan13 Removed tiger zip data (left & right)
22017-06-20 01:50:48 UTCstevea What a colossal flustercluck. I am reverting.
12017-06-10 21:24:27 UTCTheDutchMan13 Removed tiger zip data (left & right)
22017-06-20 01:49:42 UTCstevea What a colossal flustercluck. I am reverting.
12017-06-10 21:24:30 UTCTheDutchMan13 Removed tiger zip data (left & right)
22017-06-20 01:48:57 UTCstevea What a colossal flustercluck. I am reverting.
12017-03-20 19:29:53 UTCuser_5359 Hello! What is the meaning of your different ways only marked with name=Sandhills? Please see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nEs
22017-03-20 19:39:51 UTCstevea These are a unique-to-the-area geological formation of rock/sand which give rise to the frequent quarries in the area (many largely "played out" and now closed). In the middle Miocene epoch (about 15 million years ago) this area was underwater/ocean and today these areas are often part of...
32017-03-20 19:49:34 UTCuser_5359 Did you read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural?
42017-03-20 19:56:26 UTCstevea Many times, but there are no values for that key which seem appropriate. It may be time to "coin" one (make one up). However, it is so local and unique, that I have been reluctant to do this.

You might do a Google search on "Santa Cruz sandhills" or look at http://www.santac...
52017-03-20 20:15:22 UTCuser_5359 I see some similarities with a dune. Did you know the Dune of Pilat (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...
62017-03-20 20:27:10 UTCstevea Thank you, although these are much more geologically and biologically rich than a simple sand dune. They are a wholly unique feature on the landscape. Some of them actually are protected within boundary=protected_area, protect_class=1a, 6 or 7, however, when they fall upon private property (as the...
72017-03-20 20:38:03 UTCstevea Now I believe that geological=outcrop might be about right, but it's still pretty rough.
82017-03-20 20:49:54 UTCstevea I have added geological=outcrop to these data, along with a FIXME tag which describes them as rough and needing additional refinement. Thank you for your help!
12017-03-11 03:04:25 UTCstevea Hi maleo818: Welcome to OSM!

I saw your initial edit at Swan Lake Garden. This isn't really a park; the area you drew over has apartment buildings and is part of the larger residential area known as "swan lake garden" as a residential polygon.

If you like, you might try adding (as ...
12017-03-10 09:27:28 UTCmueschel Hi,
You uploaded a huge sset of objects, which are mainly tagged with foreign tags which most likely should not appear in Osm. Could you check and correct this?
Jan

Examples:
ACCESS_TYP=Open Access
ACRES=48.743
AGNCY_ID=1328
AGNCY_LEV=City
AGNCY_NAME=Scotts Valley, City...
22017-03-10 17:34:49 UTCstevea I wouldn't say "huge" as it is a few dozen edits over the course of a few hours in a single day (and I'm not done yet) against the over 12,000 edits I have entered over the last eight years.

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

Other tags like ACRES and COUNTY are just redundant because they can easily be retrieved f...
42017-03-10 18:06:41 UTCstevea Thank you for your quick reply. I can certainly endeavor to reduce and/or conflate tags on future CPAD polygon entries, as I do agree that they do contain a large amount of metadata. Some is useful and some is not (to OSM) and as long as a polygon in OSM can be identified as mapping back to a uniq...
12016-12-28 10:22:48 UTCuser_5359 Welcome to OSM! Is this really a park? I see residential buildings on the aerial images.
22016-12-28 23:07:15 UTCstevea Yeah, I think this is nonsensical and suggest it be removed. Could be a Pokemon Go spoof.
32017-01-03 11:12:33 UTCuser_5359 Hello openstreetguy, I have revert your changeset, because you didn't answer.
12016-10-08 19:34:40 UTCstevea Can you please explain the source of your knowledge for why you set a significant amount of Northwestern Pacific Railroad to disused? (Including sidings)? This railway is in a long period of rehabilitation for both industrial/freight and passenger usage and does not appear to be disused. I intend...
12016-10-05 20:42:23 UTCstevea Please don't tag a whole building as elevator=yes, place the location of the elevator exactly where it is and tag it with highway=elevator.
12016-09-26 09:53:59 UTCuser_5359 Welcome to OSM! Please notice a name isn’t a description of place and operator.

If you need help, you are welcome!
22016-10-05 20:39:18 UTCstevea As an avid mapper at UCSC I agree that the names of specific "cardboard dumpsters" needs to be dialed back here. Let's tag these properly instead of overloading their name= tags.
12016-08-11 00:13:52 UTCschleuss Whoo!
22016-08-11 00:37:31 UTCstevea Hey, come on, it's just a stub of the old Anaheim to Santa Ana branch from the 1870s-1880s. A lot of the rest has been "subsumed" by I-5 and I'm trying to get California rail to be more complete. You're kidding, right?! (Choo!)
12016-06-09 07:11:23 UTCstevea You are NOT "fixing" this route by changing its tags from network=icn to network=ncn. This is under no circumstances a network=ncn route. It is an international mountain bike route and that is NOT an ncn by any definition. If you are making this change so that you can see the route rend...
22016-06-10 09:48:20 UTCSK53 It would be better if both of you respected the judgement of two very experienced OSM bicycle mappers who both regard this as route=mtb. See the mail by Richard Fairhurst to talk-us about this https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-May/016206.html, and the comment by Simon Poole on O...
32016-06-10 17:43:26 UTCstevea I do respect OSM, and am a respected OSM bicycle mapper since 2009, even speaking about national bicycle routing in the USA at SOTM-US in 2014 (see http://vimeo.com/91897324) AND I extensively consulted with Richard Fairhurst on his cycle.travel router, for which he publicly and profusely thanked me...
12016-05-24 18:37:18 UTCstevea About your comment "changed tags for proper rendering." This is just plain wrong, and is blatant "coding for the renderer." We have been down this road before, and many times. I tire of this edit war, and it must stop.

We need to establish a truce with GDMBR. GDMBR is NOT ...
12016-05-24 02:38:56 UTCFTA Hi MountainAddict,

Users have tried to engage with you many times in changeset comments about editing the tags on this object.


Is rendering of map tiles somewhere the reason you want route=ncn and not route=icn? If that is the issue, we can certainly reach out to whoever creates the tiles yo...
22016-05-24 18:34:54 UTCstevea About your comment "changed tags for proper rendering." This is just plain wrong, and is blatant "coding for the renderer." We have been down this road before, and many times. I tire of this edit war, and it must stop.

We need to establish a truce with GDMBR. GDMBR is NOT ...
12016-02-21 19:14:24 UTCstevea Very nice work. The map appreciates your efforts here!
12016-02-07 18:39:12 UTCstevea You need to read our wiki pages at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks . There, you will see that this IS an icn as well as understand how the historical context of why it was rcn AND how ACA routes shouldn't even be in OSM. Don't tag for the renderer, and this DOES ...
22016-02-07 19:10:31 UTCFTA This route crosses an international border, right? Canada -> U.S.? Wiki pages suggest this should be tagged with icn (e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:network%3Dicn), a tag that is in use (http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/networ...
32016-02-07 19:16:34 UTCstevea Please read the wiki I suggest. There is a long history (not OSM history, actual real-life history) that is highly relevant here. I spoke on these topics at SOTM-US in 2014 and am in frequent contact with Kerry Irons and upper management of ACA on a weekly basis. If you refer to Cycle Map layer a...
12016-01-15 01:01:32 UTCstevea And how is it you have permission to enter these data? ACA routes are copyrighted and unless you have specific permission to enter these into OSM (I strongly suspect you don't), they are a violation of OSM's Contributor Terms and our ODBL.
12015-08-11 18:29:45 UTCmaxerickson Are the duplicate overlapping sections of the Jefferson City Subdivision here an accident or unfinished work? One end of it here, continues for some ways:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335497374
22015-08-11 18:59:24 UTCstevea It seems to be an accident. I welcome any corrections you or anybody else more familiar than I am with the Jefferson City Subdivision can offer.
32015-08-11 19:55:31 UTCmaxerickson I don't have any specific knowledge of the area, JOSM flagged the duplicate ways.

There are double tracks visible for at least some of the way and someone had started aligning the duplicates with the second track, so I wasn't sure if there was a plan or what:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node...
42015-08-12 00:59:58 UTCstevea To which someone do you refer?
52015-08-12 01:04:39 UTCstevea g246020?
62015-08-12 02:08:52 UTCmaxerickson Yeah, that's what I meant.
72016-01-06 21:12:44 UTCmaxerickson Hi Steve, this changeset did indeed introduce quite a few duplicated railway=rail. Maybe you could take some time and delete some of them?

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

Anyway, I contacted you based on the presumption that you cared about the relation being sane (I see y...
12015-06-23 14:36:34 UTCmstriewe This changeset added "bicycle=shoulder" to some highways, which is used nowhere else. Did you mean "cycleway=shoulder" instead (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Other_values)?
22015-06-23 18:26:32 UTCstevea OK, I believe I have changed all bicycle=shoulder tags to cycleway=shoulder.
32016-03-28 17:46:02 UTCElliottPlack Steve, a question about the US 340 / MD 67 Interchange. MD SHA specifically prohibits bicycles on this section of US 340. Does the USBR trump that prohibition, or perhaps could the SHA data not be up to date? I am working with SHA bike planners on building a signed, numbered, state-wide bicycle netw...
12015-06-20 04:24:54 UTCjremillard admin_level=4 on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/187118 ? State parts are not administrative boundaries?
22015-06-20 06:28:40 UTCstevea This was an old-fashioned way of tagging way back when (circa 2009 when the CASIL and Santa Cruz County GIS imports happened). I agree with you (now, 2015) that it is incorrect to put admin_level=4 on a State Park and so I have removed that tag.
12015-04-26 05:23:56 UTCMinh Nguyen I undid some of these changes in changeset 30491130. railway=construction construction=tram_stop is a well-used and well-documented way of indicating that a subway station is under construction. The name=* tag is not intended for descriptive text, even in parentheses.
22015-04-26 16:08:00 UTCstevea Of course, Minh: thank you for your corrections and especially for documenting here the correct way to tag this so I know how to do this if/as I find such construction in the future.
12015-03-25 20:27:30 UTCemacsen While this information is true (most of the NE corridor tracks) allow for speeds about 120mph, not all do. I know because I was just on Acella a few days ago on this very route and sometimes we were going >100mph, and then in the middle of the journey, we dropped to ~30mph, around bends and popul...
22015-03-26 01:53:29 UTCemacsen Steve, you sent me an email, but I want to keep all conversations public. Please specify the source for where you say that these track ways are high speed compatible. Based on my experience, some are and some aren't.
32015-03-26 02:07:04 UTCemacsen In addition to Amtrak, you're also saying that some Metro-North rails are high speed. Please tell me where you can tell which rails are being replaced with high speed capable rails, because I haven't heard that they've completed that renovation universally. In other words. So what is your source?
42015-03-26 02:13:37 UTCstevea Hello Serge:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGAIN, (I repeat) AS IT IS DOCUMENTED, the "highspeed=yes" tag literally means: "Is this line a high-speed line?" Emphas...
212015-04-07 19:12:07 UTCNakaner I suggest following temporary compromise between you as long as there has been no consensus about highspeed=yes found: highspeed=yes may only be tagged on those tracks which can be used with a speed greater than 100 mph (160 km/h). The usage of highspeed=yes on relations is not affected by this comp...
222015-04-07 19:14:58 UTCNakaner I think that argueing here a longer time will not lead us to a consensus. It will only cost valueable time of each of us. Please continue this debate either at ORM or Tagging mailing list. (Tagging is suitable in this case because it is not a topic where people have to have much knowledge about sign...
232015-04-08 02:43:10 UTCstevea It isn't too far a stretch to say NEC is "somewhere between orange and red." Subtle, huh, yeah, I know. As we best know how to tag.
242015-04-09 00:40:40 UTCstevea In changeset 30077144, I have deprecated the highspeed=yes tags from all NEC segments. However, previous changesets have set maxspeed= tags. As a net result, on segments where maxspeed>=160, highspeed=yes is "back" to being set. These segments include the great majority of the NEC, a...
252015-04-10 16:55:22 UTCstevea OpenRailwayMap's Infrastructure and Maxspeed styles now render these changes accurately. I consider this resolved.
12015-04-08 00:06:08 UTCstevea Looks like you cracked open (disconnected) a (rather admittedly complex, I will concur) landuse=conservation multipolygon while editing around Camp Ben Lomond and Empire Grade a couple of weeks ago. As one of the original authors of this, I have fixed it.
22015-04-08 07:36:16 UTCshravan91 Thank you Stevea for the edit. I was working on the road connection and forgot to look at the polygon. Next time, I'll make sure that I don't make the same mistake again.
32015-04-09 19:52:30 UTCstevea Not a problem, took me just a couple of minutes. Thanks for your cooperation and good attitude. Go OSM!
12015-03-25 21:37:06 UTCemacsen This is another changeset with a source that doesn't really make sense to me. Where is the source for these changesets? Is there a URL or other public source?
22015-03-26 02:15:09 UTCstevea OK, Caltrain publishes web pages and printed schedules that say Gilroy is a station on the Baby Bullet line.

If you would like one, here it is: http://www.caltrain.com/schedules/weekdaytimetable.html

If you would like me to endeavor to be quite exact with web links and exact publication names...
12014-12-21 21:44:55 UTCstevea I have "knowledge" of these segments of freeway, also. They are not highway=trunk, they are highway=motorway (fully controlled-access "freeway" in California). They are even all named "Freeway." Please consider changing back to highway=motorway.
stevea has contributed to 39 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 153 comment(s)