Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
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 26 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 90 comment(s)