Minh Nguyen participated in the following changeset discussionsMinh Nguyen participated in the following changeset discussions| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 167849751 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-20 01:51 | 1 | 2025-07-04 06:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, your addition of a ref tag to the Peña Boulevard route relation is apparently causing some renderers to think this route is numbered “Peña” despite already belonging to a route network all its own. You also cited an image on Wikimedia Commons that might be misleading pe... |
| 2 | 2025-07-04 16:34 | Flap Slimy Outward ♦42 | Okay, I will fix these. | |
| 168025011 by Fenley Jones @ 2025-06-23 23:55 | 1 | 2025-07-03 00:23 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I see that you attempted to keep OSM data consumers from misinterpreting the planned subway stations as active subway stations, but you need to use abandoned:railway=station or something like that. Otherwise, every data consumer currently thinks these are active subway stations, because they und... |
| 2 | 2025-07-03 01:21 | Fenley Jones ♦3 | Hi! Yes, I was afraid this might happen. I've never been the best on tagging and from what I read on the wiki, this seemed to be proper. I see the issue though. I only wanted to add them as they then show in Open Railway Map. I actually have pretty extensive knowledge of the subway, I've d... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-03 05:47 | Minh Nguyen | The subway itself definitely belongs in OSM as railway=abandoned and ideally man_made=tunnel. The stations are iffier, but at least general-audience maps won’t mislead their users if you use abandoned:railway=station instead of railway=station.There are actually two OpenRailwayMap sites th... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-03 05:52 | Minh Nguyen | The rule of thumb is that OSM maps anything that still exists based on observation, while OHM maps anything regardless of when it existed (past, present, or future) based on research. This subway tunnel still exists, but the stations only exist as clues like platforms and setbacks in the walls. It&r... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-03 13:49 | Fenley Jones ♦3 | Okay great information. The part about the subway still being in osm is what I was confused about. I can update. | |
| 168025126 by Fenley Jones @ 2025-06-24 00:07 | 1 | 2025-07-03 00:08 | Minh Nguyen | The Hamlet preset is for small rural communities. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168420838 merges the name into the existing brownfield area representing the razed neighborhood. |
| 101477458 by Minh Nguyen @ 2021-03-22 06:56 | 1 | 2025-06-29 01:41 | jmapb ♦404 | Howdy, any chance you remember what's up with these not:railways?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/920642655https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/920642656https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/920642657 |
| 2 | 2025-06-29 16:03 | Minh Nguyen | Take a look at Esri World Imagery (2022 vintage). This playground used to be marked with a baseball field and some sets of railroad tracks, all painted. All of it was replaced by a soccer field as of 2023, but I strongly suspect that the painted railroad tracks indicate the precise location of the s... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-29 17:58 | jmapb ♦404 | How lovely, sorry to see them painted over.The current track alignment seems to jive well with the imported easement at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/808686181 so I'm not inclined to futz with the subway ways. (Not sure we really need those subterranean easements mapped but I'm not... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-30 16:52 | Minh Nguyen | Yeah, I figured as much, so I only mapped those “rails” as not:railway=rail to clarify for mappers using Esri imagery that they weren’t looking at actual tracks. Admittedly it’s just a novelty. | |
| 167465187 by kevinp2 @ 2025-06-10 21:51 | 1 | 2025-06-10 22:48 | Minh Nguyen | Hey, I noticed this addition from your comment in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/104#issuecomment-2960676006. Is The Basin a residential subdivision? If so, consider retagging this way as landuse=residential instead of as a boundary. OSM Carto and some other maps will giv... |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 02:00 | kevinp2 ♦19 | Hi Minh, thanks, I tried changing this to a landuse=residential and it did do the background fill, but for some reason, the label is displayed at only zoom level 17. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-11 22:01 | Minh Nguyen | Yes, it looks like labels for other things are colliding with it and take precedence at other zoom levels due to limited space. Maps tend to prioritize labels based on size. A subdivision of this size is unlikely to be labeled very prominently, but you’ll have more luck with a larger subdivisi... | |
| 166493926 by Minh Nguyen @ 2025-05-19 19:38 | 1 | 2025-05-19 19:38 | Minh Nguyen | Addresses are from https://gis.countyofnapa.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0bbafe490c58430da719ff851c78b7fa |
| 166460272 by Minh Nguyen @ 2025-05-19 07:04 | 1 | 2025-05-19 07:04 | Minh Nguyen | Also added some traffic signs at the Napa County line about the glassy-winged sharpshooter. |
| 166451643 by Hayleox @ 2025-05-18 23:19 | 1 | 2025-05-19 00:42 | Minh Nguyen | Brave of you to rely solely on landuse=education instead of dual-tagging the grounds with amenity=school so that it still appears on OSM Carto. 💪 |
| 2 | 2025-05-19 01:17 | Hayleox ♦9 | Yeah, I was back and forth on that. The wiki explicitly describes doing it this way, so I figured it must be a Carto bug. Sure enough, looks like an issue has been open for a loooong time: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/774 | |
| 165698735 by Minh Nguyen @ 2025-05-02 01:23 | 1 | 2025-05-02 01:24 | Minh Nguyen | This was also based on a field survey in 2022. |
| 162094261 by salisburymistake @ 2025-02-03 16:45 | 1 | 2025-04-08 17:58 | Minh Nguyen | traffic_sign=neighborhood_watch is an American spelling; I’ve been using neighbourhood_watch instead, with an extra u. Do you think we should switch to that spelling, or use a different tag entirely?https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neighbourhood-watch-signs/128215/5 |
| 2 | 2025-04-11 15:19 | salisburymistake ♦26 | Ha, I think I mentioned this awhile back in the US Slack. I didn't see any instance of them with either spelling in TagInfo when I started, and I thought that I might try to establish the American spelling for something for once, since we all are forced to use "colour" and so on.B... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-13 18:39 | Minh Nguyen | OK, thanks, I did a find-and-replace in changeset 164907952. If we can map enough of these, I think there’s a decent chance of restoring the American spelling as part of https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues/1515 | |
| 164907952 by Minh Nguyen @ 2025-04-13 18:26 | 1 | 2025-04-13 18:28 | Minh Nguyen | See the discussion in changeset 162094261. |
| 163369601 by j0hn33y @ 2025-03-08 15:50 | 1 | 2025-03-25 22:42 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I noticed that some service=shared_driveway got retagged as service=driveway. If you disagree with service=shared_driveway, can you pick one of the other tagging schemes at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems or omit service=*? Some renderers and routers intentio... |
| 2 | 2025-03-25 23:07 | j0hn33y ♦11 | When working in josm the shared_driveway tag had a warning of "The key service has an uncommon value", Thought it may have been a depreciated tag. Now I see it is not. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-25 23:13 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, that makes sense. I hope eventually the community will coalesce around one of the tags so software can better support it. For what it’s worth, the uncommon tags warning is good at catching typos or opportunities to align to more common terms (especially British English terms that Americans... | |
| 162592014 by j0hn33y @ 2025-02-17 00:48 | 1 | 2025-03-20 21:07 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, note that place=* tags intentionally don’t correspond to official designations as cities and villages, because they have to be harmonized globally or at least nationally. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163881091 changes South Lebanon back to a place=village. The boundary relation ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-20 21:08 | Minh Nguyen | Also, thanks for finally completing Warren County’s townships! | |
| 140452137 by sandhill @ 2023-08-27 13:40 | 1 | 2025-03-08 22:59 | Minh Nguyen | Every member way of the Cary boundary relation has a name=* like “Town of Cary / Town of Apex” or “Town of Cary, Inner Boundary”. Is there a quirk of local law that calls for this naming practice, or was it only for convenience while doing this alignment work? Can we remove t... |
| 2 | 2025-03-10 20:35 | gregorywpower ♦6 | As far as I know there's no legal basis for either of those naming conventions. For Town of Cary's limits https://data.carync.gov/explore/dataset/cary-corporate-limits/information/ this is the multipolygon that is provided. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-11 05:14 | sandhill ♦2 | You are welcome to change any or all of my edits. My goal was to greatly increase the accuracy and usability of the data that previously existed. I appreciate anyone’s effort to make it better. | |
| 163261458 by Minh Nguyen @ 2025-03-05 21:03 | 1 | 2025-03-05 21:04 | Minh Nguyen | Source was a survey back in November. |
| 163109218 by Minh Nguyen @ 2025-03-02 04:47 | 1 | 2025-03-02 08:16 | mcliquid ♦1,852 | Really just out of pure personal interest, away from OSM. Where is this abbreviation defined? I was still aware of “USA” until now. Or just “U.S.” in reference to the government, but without the “A”. And even with a quick internet search, I only find “USA&rd... |
| 2 | 2025-03-02 17:03 | Minh Nguyen | U.S. is the preferred abbreviation of United States in American English. U.S.A. is the preferred abbreviation of United States of America, which is much more common overseas. Domestically, native speakers only use United States and U.S. in most contexts. U.S.A. only occurs for nationalistic emphasis... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-02 21:41 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 163139172 moves U.S.A. to short_official_name=*, which appears to be in use as well. | |
| 163072059 by BlTCH @ 2025-02-28 23:03 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-01 07:14 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,393 | Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163076802 |
| 2 | 2025-03-01 07:15 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,393 | Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163076903 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-02 04:57 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 163109297. | |
| 163072163 by BlTCH @ 2025-02-28 23:10 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-01 03:09 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17340 |
| 2 | 2025-03-01 07:16 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,393 | Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163076802 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-02 04:44 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 163109177. | |
| 162982682 by Pinstall @ 2025-02-26 18:00 | 1 | 2025-03-01 18:54 | Minh Nguyen | Please remember to square the corners of buildings that you draw by hand. You can press the Q key to square corners quickly. |
| 161870600 by Minh Nguyen @ 2025-01-28 19:15 | 1 | 2025-01-28 21:48 | jogemu ♦44 | Is Vịnh Mexico more common than Vịnh México? If not I would propose:name:vi=Vịnh Méxicoalt_name:vi=Vịnh Mễ Tây Cơ;Vịnh Mễ;Vịnh Mexico;Vịnh Mê-hi-côIn case you agree, could you do me a favor and change alt_name:he to name:he as well? I tried ... |
| 2 | 2025-01-28 22:11 | Minh Nguyen | Sorry, I didn’t realize I was getting in the middle of things. Another mapper reached out to me and asked me to take care of Vietnamese.> Is Vịnh Mexico more common than Vịnh México?It’s complicated. Vietnamese spelling of foreign place names is notoriously unstanda... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-28 22:24 | jogemu ♦44 | No, problem. Thank you for the explanation. Using the same spelling as the country relation seems logical. Adding Mexico to alt_name:vi of the country relation could be done as well. Since, I am not really qualified I can't make those decisions. | |
| 161860010 by טריסטרם @ 2025-01-28 14:30 | 1 | 2025-01-28 16:09 | Glassman ♦5,221 | May I suggest not using alt_name:he but instead name:he tag to be more consistent with the other language versions of the gulf? |
| 2 | 2025-01-28 16:15 | jogemu ♦44 | Why was alt_name:vi removed? Maybe you renamed alt_name:vi to alt_name:he instead of adding the alt_name:he. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-28 16:23 | Glassman ♦5,221 | There is a tag name:vi = Vinh Mexico. I don't speak or read Vietnamese so I can say it is correct. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161860010 | |
| 4 | 2025-01-28 16:41 | jogemu ♦44 | I don't speak it either but the Vietnamese Wikipedia of México mentions that Mễ Tây Cơ is indeed the Sino-Vietnamese word. The question was directed towards טריסטרם in expectation of some justification in case the removal wasn't a mistake. I assume a not was missing,... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-28 16:47 | טריסטרם ♦2 | Sorry.. I did it by mistake | |
| 6 | 2025-01-28 16:48 | טריסטרם ♦2 | Please help me revert it | |
| 7 | 2025-01-28 16:55 | jogemu ♦44 | Is this what you want?alt_name:vi=Vịnh Mễ Tây Cơname:he=מפרץ מקסיקוWithout alt_name:heIn that case there is no need for a revert. | |
| 8 | 2025-01-28 16:58 | jogemu ♦44 | You/I can just fix the values with a new changeset. But first I need to confirm that both our suggestions are correct. | |
| 9 | 2025-01-28 17:02 | טריסטרם ♦2 | thats OK | |
| 10 | 2025-01-28 19:16 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed the Vietnamese name in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161870600 | |
| 125964044 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-09-09 04:00 | 1 | 2025-01-01 21:17 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Would you happen to remember where you found the name for this turn-off? I think it may be due for an update, but I couldn't find any signage in street level imagery. |
| 2 | 2025-01-01 21:26 | Minh Nguyen | It came from a sign a quarter mile north that appeared in Mapillary [1] and KartaView [2] as late as 2019. Mapillary also has imagery from two years ago, but I can’t tell if the sign was removed or buried under the snow.[1] https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=489650309015635[2] https://k... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-01 21:47 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | I see. You can compare heights with the sign across the road. The sign was tall enough that it wouldn't have been buried by that snowbank, so it was clearly gone as of 2023. | |
| 4 | 2025-01-01 21:57 | Minh Nguyen | Yeah, sounds like they would’ve removed it anyways. I don’t think Caltrans tracks turnout names as anything particularly formal, other than in project specifications, so we can just remove the name if there’s no sign. | |
| 5 | 2025-01-01 21:59 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Sounds good. | |
| 6 | 2025-01-01 22:28 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for fixing it! By the way, Caltrans apparently hasn’t updated a different sign further up that refers to the road by the old name. (That sign is also unusual for the dyadic fraction. Hadn’t seen that before.)[1] https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=932214371489044 | |
| 7 | 2025-01-02 00:01 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | I did notice the sign, although the fraction didn't catch my eye. I suppose Caltrans is just waiting until they have a reason to replace it. | |
| 111064819 by RW and VJ @ 2021-09-11 14:29 | 1 | 2024-12-18 23:44 | Minh Nguyen | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160372474 moves this information back to the original Marion County relation; see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/incorrect-indianapolis-city-limits/122928 |
| 84849765 by Tym K @ 2020-05-07 19:19 | 1 | 2024-12-18 23:43 | Minh Nguyen | Undone in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160372474 ; see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/incorrect-indianapolis-city-limits/122928 |
| 160111603 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-12-10 00:39 | 1 | 2024-12-10 07:49 | Minh Nguyen | The source was https://web.archive.org/web/20241117171033/https://www.caltrain.com/location/stanford-stadium as well as https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrain-will-provide-big-game-service-cal-vs-stanford-saturday for the fact that northbound trains stop at the southbound platform. |
| 68818703 by arshakerbrown @ 2019-04-03 01:17 | 1 | 2024-09-05 05:20 | Allison P ♦1,136 | You moved a bar into the middle of a river almost a hundred miles away https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4675755526 |
| 2 | 2024-12-08 04:56 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160045907 | |
| 142777064 by hwierzbicki @ 2023-10-18 18:51 | 1 | 2024-12-06 19:23 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, it looks like you undid all the changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106515773 to represent the tower as a tower with multiple antennas on it. Applying man_made=mast to an area technically contradicts the current documentation, but I’ve proposed to relax that restriction, iro... |
| 2 | 2024-12-06 20:33 | hwierzbicki ♦13 | Hi Minh,Thanks for the comment and for linking the discussion. As you noticed, my edit aimed to align the communication mast with current documentation. While I see the merit in your proposed changes, I have some concerns about implementing them in practice:1. The vast majority of co... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-07 04:04 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for your response. I agree that conflating so many real-world features into one node makes it difficult to choose a single Wikidata tag, GNIS feature ID, or FCC ID to put on the node. In my opinion, that’s a sign that collapsing everything down to a node wasn’t a good idea.I s... | |
| 159766513 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-11-30 09:05 | 1 | 2024-11-30 09:06 | Minh Nguyen | Also removed bike paths in Augusta and Waterville from USBR 1 superrelation. |
| 154162314 by aighes @ 2024-07-20 00:01 | 1 | 2024-11-13 07:02 | Minh Nguyen | Do these really have to be “superroutes”, or can they just be routes within routes, as documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Route_directions and originally at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Superrelation ? |
| 2 | 2024-11-28 01:45 | aighes ♦20 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superrouteIn my understanding of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute documentation and also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Superrelation for me superroute is a perfect fit for those relations. Also offers an easier QA as well as... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-28 02:29 | Minh Nguyen | As I understand it, “superroute” was originally the result of a miscommunication in the JOSM issue tracker. The superrelation documentation actually has always recommended nesting a route relation inside a route relation, but this is no longer clear because of the “superroute&rdquo... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-28 14:28 | aighes ♦20 | Maybe I'm misunderstand https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Membersbut at least as I read it, a route-relation suppose to contains ways and nodes, only the role "information" is intended for relations. | |
| 5 | 2024-11-28 14:31 | aighes ♦20 | You don't need superduperroute. superroute contains relations, route contains ways and nodes (aka geometry). It's not about hierarchy of different levels. | |
| 6 | 2024-11-28 14:49 | aighes ♦20 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle#Membersas well just "allowing" ways in route-relations and recommends for longer routes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle#Split_routes_into_sectionsthe usage of superroute to combine the sections. Read &quo... | |
| 7 | 2024-11-28 19:30 | Minh Nguyen | Looks like we have inconsistent documentation. Again, the longstanding *superrelation* documentation never required a special superroute type; this is a misreading that has taken on a life of its own.Steve recently acknowledged your edits on the USBRS page [1], but it’s inconsistent with h... | |
| 8 | 2024-11-28 21:09 | aighes ♦20 | Discussion continues here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/us-route-relations/122274 | |
| 157151633 by diamondarmorsteve @ 2024-09-27 02:24 | 1 | 2024-11-28 00:05 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks, if this was in response to changesets like 72411037, that user went on a retagging spree several years ago ostensibly to connect county seats, but it turns out they were secretly trying to promote historic farm-to-market and intercounty highways to be identifiable on a zoomed-out map. They n... |
| 159483086 by quincylvania @ 2024-11-23 05:08 | 1 | 2024-11-25 19:49 | Mashin ♦556 | Hi Quincy,I don't think this is a good idea.First the network tag is for hiking routes is described having only lwn, rwn, nwn, iwn values.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3DhikingAnd second some data consumers depend on this values. Waymarkedtrails being one of them I think... |
| 2 | 2024-11-25 20:20 | Minh Nguyen | Waymarked Trails does support the three-letter acronyms, but the developer isn’t a big fan of them: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bike-route-networks-classification-icn-ncn-rcn-and-lcn/121700/36There’s longstanding desire for reforming recreational network tagging in the U.S.... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-25 21:22 | Mashin ♦556 | Sure. I also think that the current values scale very poorly for large countries like US, but how does it justify to do such dramatic change that will make the trails disappear from some maps? I missed discussion about this.What is the idea for network values for the rest of the hiking trails co... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-25 21:30 | Minh Nguyen | I agree that we should be consistent at least within the country rather than doing it piecemeal.With the hierarchical network=* format as used on road routes, the hierarchical level is more or less the number of colons in the value, though less complicated countries would probably prefer the oth... | |
| 5 | 2024-11-27 19:39 | quincylvania ♦53 | I opened an issue at Waymarked Trails to support three-letter classification acronyms in `network:type` as well as in `network`. https://github.com/waymarkedtrails/waymarkedtrails-backend/issues/16 | |
| 158953471 by UrbanUnPlanner @ 2024-11-10 01:14 | 1 | 2024-11-10 06:15 | Udarian ♦401 | please in the future do not add the crossing:signals=* because it is implied the by the crossings=* value; this is because crossings=uncontrolled and crossing=unmarked both imply that the crossings isn't signalized (aka crossing:signals=no)(literally the definition of uncontrolled in this conte... |
| 2 | 2024-11-11 02:55 | UrbanUnPlanner ♦8 | You'll want to take that up with bhousel (the Rapid maintainer) -- I'm following Rapid's logic re: crossing:signals these days. (The overall intent is to deprecate the distinctions in crossings=* in favor of separate tagging for markings, signals, and other crossing properties.) | |
| 3 | 2024-11-11 03:46 | Udarian ♦401 | If we deprecate crossing we would be going against all the conventions that have already been established elsewhere in the tagging, for example we don't describe sidewalks as a set of properties added to ways with the tag highway=footway, we add footway=sidewalk to describe that something is a ... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-11 16:54 | ezekielf ♦84 | Hi Udar, Just popping in to say that crossing:signals= is a perfectly valid in-use tag. It's fine if you think it's redundant, but many other mappers don't so please don't delete it. Personally, I always tag both crossing:markings= and crossing:signals= while often omitting c... | |
| 5 | 2024-11-11 18:11 | Lumikeiju ♦101 | I'll also voice my strong support for "crossing:markings=*" and "crossing:signals=*" as useful and well-documented tags (and my distaste for "crossing=*", which has 912 different values currently!) | |
| 6 | 2024-11-11 20:27 | Udarian ♦401 | so then logically we should also remove footway=* tags. that's the pattern here, you have a tag telling you what the feature is and then then a tag that starts with what it is from the previous tag telling you what type of what it is it is.for example sidewalks, highway=footway tells you they... | |
| 7 | 2024-11-11 23:44 | Lumikeiju ♦101 | "crossing:markings=*" + "crossing:signals=*" allows for all combinations of these features (and their details, such as "crossing:markings:colour=*") to be tagged, based entirely on observable on-the-ground information, under one coherent schema. "crossing=*" d... | |
| 8 | 2024-11-12 08:53 | Minh Nguyen | The status quo with crossing=* is objectively the consequence of multiple errors over the years. [1][2] A fair number of mappers are OK with the status quo, but they don’t quite agree among themselves about what that is. Fortunately, OSM’s tagging standards do evolve over time. crossing:... | |
| 135363897 by Kevin Wallace @ 2023-04-26 01:20 | 1 | 2023-04-26 18:22 | impiaaa ♦420 | For this one you've tagged the whole office building with data center tags, but it looks like there are other offices inside as well. If so I think it would be better to keep the data center tags on a node or maybe a indoor=floor. |
| 2 | 2023-04-26 22:15 | Kevin Wallace ♦14 | Tagging the whole building as telecom=data_center isn't perfect, I'd agree. I'd tag telecom=carrier_hotel instead, but that doesn't seem to be a thing. My understanding is that there are lots of datacenter spaces scattered throughout the building, not limited to a specific floo... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-11 00:13 | Minh Nguyen | This building has always housed a variety of data centers, some of them more well-known than others. But to passersby, it isn’t a data center at all; it’s an office tower full of lawyers and accountants and the IRS.We’ve already mapped several data centers and exchanges within ... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-11 17:16 | Minh Nguyen | Another mapper on OSMUS Slack suggested telecom=carrier_hotel as well, so I added it in changeset 159018292 and will retag a couple other carrier hotels that I see elsewhere in the country. | |
| 158989447 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-11-11 00:07 | 1 | 2024-11-11 00:13 | Minh Nguyen | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135363897 for more discussion. |
| 158923526 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-11-09 08:53 | 1 | 2024-11-09 09:00 | Minh Nguyen | This updates the boundary to reflect the land swap effective October 30. [1]I took the coordinates specified in the unsigned draft compact [2], which match the signed and executed compact [3]. This work is in the public domain as an edict of government. [4] Since the coordinates are given in NAD... |
| 158465646 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-10-28 17:15 | 1 | 2024-10-29 02:57 | HubMiner ♦271 | Not sure what happened, but that was cute. :) |
| 2 | 2024-10-29 03:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hehe :-) | |
| 156261727 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-09-06 08:15 | 1 | 2024-10-09 17:57 | hoserab ♦191 | Thanks for adding these, Minh. :)I don't know speak Chinese (or any other language that may historically/incidentally use Han characters), so wasn't very confident about adding the names in Chinese. (Whereas e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128536413 I had public online sou... |
| 2 | 2024-10-09 18:04 | Minh Nguyen | Glad to help. I’m kicking myself for not taking more photos while I was there.I don’t read Chinese myself, beyond a handful of characters. Fortunately, the Google Translate application’s Google Lens feature does a somewhat decent job of OCR’ing CJK text out of photos if y... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-09 18:05 | Minh Nguyen | (Typo: I meant “transcriptions”, not “translations”. I didn’t rely on Google Translate to do any actual translation.) | |
| 157066417 by Hayleox @ 2024-09-25 06:46 | 1 | 2024-09-26 00:18 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, this one gave me a headache a long time ago. Unbelievably, the city’s official name is actually “The City of The Village of Indian Hill”. I think official_name would be the most appropriate key to put that in. If we make “Indian Hill” the primary name, then &ld... |
| 2 | 2024-09-26 03:43 | Hayleox ♦9 | Y'know I always thought it was just a bit of an exaggeration to call it that, but you're absolutely right; it's in their charter: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/indianhill/latest/indianh_oh/0-0-0-8858I'll update both objects. | |
| 149237441 by SammySpartan @ 2024-03-27 17:56 | 1 | 2024-03-28 16:52 | impiaaa ♦420 | Hi, please see the comment on your previous changeset at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144810285 . The SJSU relation is only for the main campus, not satellite campuses or off-campus facilities. |
| 2 | 2024-08-13 17:25 | SammySpartan ♦1 | Hi, apologies for late response, I don't check this account that often.I disagree that the South Campus shouldn't be included, plenty of other universities' "separate" campus have been included in the OpenStreetMap Relation (see: UC Berkeley's Kerr Campus, UT Austin... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-11 20:51 | impiaaa ♦420 | I can't speak for other universities, it could be that they are mapped wrong. I usually only pay attention to edits in my area. If you want to indicate that an off-campus office is run by SJSU, it's best to use the "operator" tag on that office. The "amenity=university"... | |
| 4 | 2024-09-11 23:00 | Minh Nguyen | An amenity=university area represents a single university campus. The area in question is Main Campus.If we combine Main Campus and South Campus into a single geometry, we lose the ability to indicate that they have different addresses and different Wikidata IDs, or that Main Campus is a static ... | |
| 5 | 2024-09-11 23:00 | Minh Nguyen | (I meant “state historic landmark”, not “static historic landmark”.) | |
| 72410443 by Dvorty @ 2019-07-19 01:19 | 1 | 2024-09-10 21:57 | Minh Nguyen | Should the inner sidewalk looping around Roosevelt/Alvarado/Cimarron have access=no? |
| 96469787 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-12-27 00:21 | 1 | 2024-08-05 16:22 | eteb3 ♦113 | Hi Minh NguyenI'm on a bit of a foray to discover how people are using the place_of_worship=musalla tag. It seems you added one here: n8262966505Do you remember why you chose to call the place =musalla rather than =mosque?My wiki discussion is here:https://wiki.openstreetmap.o... |
| 2 | 2024-08-24 18:46 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I’m not very familiar with the distinction, so apologies if I’ve made a mistake. I added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8262966505 based on https://saesdp.sccgov.org/sdpdocs/4215410-SocialDistancingProtocolForm.pdf , which is part of a dataset we were importing at the time. The n... | |
| 152956887 by j0hn33y @ 2024-06-20 17:05 | 1 | 2024-07-10 18:29 | Minh Nguyen | Fantastic detail here! By the way, I think this is all one building structurally, so it would be more correct to remove the building tag from each of these areas and surround them all with a single building area that connects to all the same nodes along the outer walls. Unfortunately, this will caus... |
| 68007655 by nickvet419 @ 2019-03-11 03:32 | 1 | 2019-05-23 05:15 | Minh Nguyen | Do you have a source for the abandoned Cincinnati Subway that you’ve drawn? It looks like you included a small loop around the present-day Fountain Square, but according to http://www.thecincinnatisubway.com/p/map.html , the subway never made it south of Central Parkway. I’m also unable ... |
| 2 | 2019-07-30 00:06 | rivermont ♦221 | Hi,there were a few (4) nodes in this changeset on the rails tagged with `Wall=yes`. What I would read as `barrier=wall` is not valid on nodes (although there are over 2,000 used for some reason), and a wall over a rail line would be impassable anyway.I changed them to `barrier=yes` - see change... | |
| 3 | 2024-06-23 18:07 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | there was more info at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposing-to-deprecate-railway-razed-and-railway-dismantled/109679/301It seems to me that this mentioned section of supposed tracks should be removed as nonexiting and not actually having any visible traces | |
| 4 | 2024-06-24 17:56 | nickvet419 ♦92 | The tunnel does make it to the 5th street branch, but is blocked off from that point. the more western tunnel gets blocked off around 6th street. | |
| 5 | 2024-06-24 18:09 | Minh Nguyen | Would you mind elaborating? Where can we find out more about what was built along this southern part of the proposed route? | |
| 6 | 2024-07-09 18:39 | Minh Nguyen | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/verifying-the-southern-leg-of-the-cincinnati-subway/115820 | |
| 7 | 2024-07-09 19:30 | nickvet419 ♦92 | Been out of town since the last edit of the tunnels. looks like you found a good list of sources for the completed sections. i think your post should be included in the associated Relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13659143, also there is a descent video tour that could be included.... | |
| 153691177 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2024-07-08 08:08 | 1 | 2024-07-08 16:21 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 153710886 cleans up one of the bridges a bit more, but it’s quite a tangled mess overall. |
| 150232054 by Fresno map @ 2024-04-19 16:21 | 1 | 2024-06-27 23:58 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for helping to keep this part of the map up to date. Please note that the name=* key (Name field) on a highway=motorway_junction node (Motorway Junction / Exit) is only for when the exit has a special name distinct from the off-ramp’s destinations. This is typical on some toll roads... |
| 2 | 2024-07-03 16:17 | Fresno map ♦17 | Thank you Minh Nguyen for correcting my edits. I misunderstood what the name=* tag was for and after I resaearched more the destination=* tag was so complicated I did not want to edit those. Have a great day! | |
| 3 | 2024-07-03 16:32 | Minh Nguyen | No worries, it’s totally understandable. Thanks again for your help in this area! | |
| 4 | 2024-07-03 17:13 | Fresno map ♦17 | Your welcome and thank you for your patience! | |
| 140912459 by oc_123 @ 2023-09-06 20:38 | 1 | 2024-06-27 23:46 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, the highway=motorway_junction tag is only for the beginning of an exit ramp (off-ramp) or a lane split (fork in the road) on a freeway, not for the end of an entrance ramp (on-ramp). I’ve removed these tags in changeset 153269802. |
| 138964948 by EPCIC @ 2023-07-25 02:16 | 1 | 2024-05-29 05:59 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, it looks like you may have inadvertently tagged a 770-acre swath as “Bus Parking”. In changeset 151971891, I undid that and tried to identify the school bus depot you were referring to, the one at Vine and Murray. Feel free to make corrections as necessary. Thanks! |
| 139441660 by flierfy @ 2023-08-04 13:19 | 1 | 2024-05-27 20:43 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, why did you map a 770-acre “Bus Parking” lot? Did you mean to tag that name on something else?https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16159204 |
| 2 | 2024-05-29 05:39 | Minh Nguyen | Never mind, it looks like someone else tagged the name in changeset 138964948 and you merely converted the area to a multipolygon. | |
| 151163230 by Joseph R P @ 2024-05-10 20:21 | 1 | 2024-05-27 06:12 | Minh Nguyen | How are you assessing importance? |
| 2 | 2024-05-27 18:14 | Joseph R P ♦342 | Simply based on how the roads serve relative to other nearby roads and how they were initially tagged. There were little to no secondary roads in this area, so I applied that classification to the (now formerly) tertiary routes that provided more access to commercial areas and major roadways than ty... | |
| 3 | 2024-05-27 18:48 | Minh Nguyen | Some of these changes are reasonable, but I think the majority should be reverted, because the result is incoherent and unrecognizable. It looks good on a map but doesn’t reflect reality very well. Your expectation of secondary roads in this area may be based on traffic or development patterns... | |
| 4 | 2024-05-27 19:45 | Joseph R P ♦342 | Which particular roads would you say are overclassified here?I think shorter arterial roads that provide connections between major highways or high-traffic areas like commercial zones can be just as vital as major thoroughfares that stretch across the metro in their own regards. I also think it ... | |
| 5 | 2024-05-27 21:38 | Minh Nguyen | “Which particular roads would you say are overclassified here?”I am not saying a particular road is overclassified. I’m saying you’re promoting roads haphazardly and inconsistently, resulting in a loss of information. Local consistency is more important than getting a ran... | |
| 6 | 2024-05-27 23:13 | Joseph R P ♦342 | Despite what my edits come across as, they weren't implemented haphazardly as I had identified the places and other roads they'd the roads I worked on would connect to and looked at AADT data, rather than going in and changing roads based on first impressions. You could say I half-assed up... | |
| 7 | 2024-05-28 05:32 | Minh Nguyen | I suggested reverting and trying again, not just returning to the status quo. But if you’d rather finish the job, then you’d upgrade the rest of the tertiary roads to secondary, for consistency with the ones you’ve already upgraded. Unfortunately, you’ll have buried the impor... | |
| 8 | 2024-05-28 17:45 | Joseph R P ♦342 | Like I implied, I didn't "guess" the importance of the roads. It's pretty clear to see how a road is used based on its traffic data when put up against other nearby roads, with consideration for the context of which area they're and where they go. The edits I made in downtow... | |
| 145307857 by Joseph R P @ 2023-12-19 21:37 | 1 | 2024-05-27 17:54 | Minh Nguyen | Did you use any sources besides Bing aerial imagery (which hasn’t been updated yet)? I’d like to update the lane counts and such, but I haven’t come across recent enough imagery, and ODOT’s SLDs haven’t been updated yet either. |
| 2 | 2024-05-27 18:28 | Joseph R P ♦342 | I've been relying on the Sentinel Hub EO Browser which can show very recent imagery but with a very low resolution. I'm still able to make out which roads do and don't exist anymore and which of them are under construction, but lane markings and finer details like that are not at all ... | |
| 150816885 by jakTTU2020 @ 2024-05-03 02:18 | 1 | 2024-05-25 23:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, “Donald H. Rolf Circle Freeway” was already tagged as an official_name. It shouldn’t be the primary name because, unlike other monikers like “Cincinnati Bypass”, the official name isn’t signposted anywhere. Similarly, changeset 150817099 should be undone:... |
| 2 | 2024-05-25 23:47 | Minh Nguyen | Also, please consider making your changeset comments more descriptive. You don’t really need to say where you made changes – that’s already obvious from the changeset’s bounding box. Instead, try to say *what* you modified, and why you modified it (if relevant). | |
| 151121339 by Jim_l_0420 @ 2024-05-09 22:19 | 1 | 2024-05-21 17:34 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, did you intend to mark NW 31st Ave. as being closed to all traffic between the Chevron and water treatment facility? I’m a bit puzzled as to how StreetComplete’s lane count quest wound up making that change. |
| 150732575 by Pinstall @ 2024-05-01 03:10 | 1 | 2024-05-02 22:53 | Minh Nguyen | This self-storage facility has multiple buildings. You can classify the buildings as being of type “storage”, but only a single feature should be tagged as a Storage Rental facility. Changeset 150814304 draws an area around the site and tags it as Storage Rental. |
| 150720863 by Pinstall @ 2024-04-30 17:59 | 1 | 2024-05-02 22:30 | Minh Nguyen | Are you sure these are boardwalks? They look more like covered walkways in aerial imagery. There’s an optional Covered field you can enable in the menu. I went ahead and changed it to a covered walkway in changeset 150813879. |
| 2 | 2024-05-02 23:03 | Pinstall ♦9 | Covered walkways is more accurate. Thank you | |
| 150688657 by Pinstall @ 2024-04-30 04:58 | 1 | 2024-05-02 22:13 | Minh Nguyen | These changes appear to have been undone in changeset 150739234 due to validation warnings. The available background layers don’t show any shift in the roads like what you mapped. Can you provide more context? Did the shift take place very recently? |
| 2 | 2024-05-02 22:21 | Pinstall ♦9 | Yes. The changes took place recently, within the last few weeks. | |
| 3 | 2024-05-02 22:27 | Minh Nguyen | OK, in that case, you’ll have to redo the changes manually. This time, try to keep the roads from overlapping or crossing each other where there isn’t an intersection. Your changeset comment can say that the change took place recently, so other mappers know not to trust the aerial imager... | |
| 150716335 by Pinstall @ 2024-04-30 16:19 | 1 | 2024-05-02 22:19 | Minh Nguyen | FYI, the Swimming Pool preset is for the pool itself, not the sunbathing area around it. Fixed in changeset 150813655. |
| 150715822 by Pinstall @ 2024-04-30 16:08 | 1 | 2024-05-02 22:16 | Minh Nguyen | After mapping a building that has right angles, right-click on it and choose Square, or press Q, to straighten out the building automatically. This way you don’t have to try as hard to draw right angles manually. |
| 150431540 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-04-24 08:26 | 1 | 2024-04-24 08:28 | Minh Nguyen | Actually, it was originally introduced in changeset 91106420. |
| 125934887 by Anton Valodzin @ 2022-09-08 09:47 | 1 | 2024-04-20 20:21 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted name and ref changes in changeset 150279629. |
| 2 | 2024-04-22 15:50 | Anton Valodzin ♦18 | Hi, Minh Nguyen! Thank you for the feedback. Best regards, Anton Valodzin. | |
| 125938764 by Anton Valodzin @ 2022-09-08 11:28 | 1 | 2024-04-20 20:11 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 150279295 reverts this changeset due to incorrect replacement of refs with names and introduction of a bogus one-way street. |
| 2 | 2024-04-22 15:50 | Anton Valodzin ♦18 | Hi, Minh Nguyen! Thank you for the feedback. Best regards, Anton Valodzin. | |
| 125860927 by Anton Valodzin @ 2022-09-06 14:02 | 1 | 2024-04-20 19:37 | Minh Nguyen | There is no consensus yet about whether a roadway’s name=* can refer to a route number, but there is broad agreement that it is incorrect to replace a ref=* tag with name=*, especially based on TIGER. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/names-are-not-refs-vs-some-names-are-based-on-refs/... |
| 2 | 2024-04-22 15:49 | Anton Valodzin ♦18 | Hi, Minh Nguyen! Thank you for your feedback and help. At that time, I didn't have that kind of knowledge in this area of edits. I took into account this information and your recommendations for the future, and also read the comments on the OCM community forum. I will be more attentive to such... | |
| 125932296 by Anton Valodzin @ 2022-09-08 08:37 | 1 | 2024-04-20 19:36 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 150277583. |
| 2 | 2024-04-22 15:49 | Anton Valodzin ♦18 | Hi, Minh Nguyen! Thank you for the feedback. Best regards, Anton Valodzin. | |
| 125933360 by Anton Valodzin @ 2022-09-08 09:06 | 1 | 2024-04-20 19:33 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 150278020. Placing route numbers in name=* is controversial, but in any case route numbers belong in ref=*. |
| 2 | 2024-04-22 15:49 | Anton Valodzin ♦18 | Hi, Minh Nguyen! Thank you for the feedback. Best regards, Anton Valodzin. | |
| 125858659 by Anton Valodzin @ 2022-09-06 13:08 | 1 | 2024-04-20 19:22 | Minh Nguyen | There is no consensus yet about whether a roadway’s name=* can refer to a route number, but there is broad agreement that it is incorrect to replace a ref=* tag with name=*, especially based on TIGER. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/names-are-not-refs-vs-some-names-are-based-on-refs/... |
| 2 | 2024-04-22 15:49 | Anton Valodzin ♦18 | Hi, Minh Nguyen! Thank you for your feedback and help. At that time, I didn't have that kind of knowledge in this area of edits. I took into account this information and your recommendations for the future, and also read the comments on the OCM community forum. I will be more attentive to such ... | |
| 144654869 by UNGSC-DTLM-Ale_Zena @ 2023-12-01 09:31 | 1 | 2024-03-30 17:38 | Minh Nguyen | I think this relation should be restored to a much older version: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3839665/history/23 The hundreds of versions since then had individual roadways as members, mostly in Vietnam. I think that’s why it got into a bad state and eventually got deleted. |
| 2 | 2024-03-30 18:15 | Minh Nguyen | Restored in changeset 149362992. | |
| 146973112 by Heinz_V @ 2024-02-02 07:22 | 1 | 2024-03-29 05:48 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, was the change from network=IN:NH to IN:NE intentional? The ways all have ref tags that are still prefixed with NH, and I wasn’t aware that a National Expressway could have such a large number. Would this route number be signposted in Roman numerals like the other NEs? |
| 2 | 2024-03-29 07:11 | Heinz_V ♦296 | Yes, the government declares the Dwarka Highway as an Expressway (finished March 2024). The ref has not changed as far as I know. | |
| 3 | 2024-03-29 15:32 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, thank you for the clarification. Are mappers in India distinguishing between expressway (motorway) as a highway classification and the National Expressway system? As far as I know, the National Highway system also includes some expressways, but there would be no way to know this from how a route... | |
| 134221471 by WC392309 @ 2023-03-28 13:39 | 1 | 2023-07-06 02:17 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I don’t think Mehring Way should be a primary road. Despite the routing of U.S. 27 and U.S. 52 along this street, it’s basically only for accessing the stadiums and parks and for some local truck traffic, but I don’t think it’s as much of a through route as 2nd and 3rd St... |
| 2 | 2024-03-13 20:33 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 148611921. | |
| 148156332 by Minh Nguyen @ 2024-03-03 08:22 | 1 | 2024-03-03 08:25 | Minh Nguyen | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-counties-and-planning-regions-in-connecticut/109799 |
| 148056264 by ZhannaB @ 2024-02-29 14:47 | 1 | 2024-02-29 18:57 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset is being discussed on the forum:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-strip-malls-buildings/109813/12 |
| 148010890 by CactiStaccingCrane @ 2024-02-28 12:12 | 1 | 2024-02-29 11:22 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for resolving note 363185. At the time, I also reached out to Kapis, the mapper who imported this and thousands of other places in Vietnam in changeset 128575.Since it had been several years since the import, we were both unsure where the data came from, but he suggested that it might hav... |
| 2 | 2024-02-29 11:52 | Minh Nguyen | I was also suspicious of whether this import came from GNS, but it doesn’t have any record of a populated place here. The closest one is a “Ban Ni Kô” that probably refers to the village just to the west. | |
| 3 | 2024-02-29 15:01 | CactiStaccingCrane ♦60 | Thank you for the detailed response. IMO there's no real way for us to verify these names unless if someone surveys all of them in-person, so unless there's a copyright issue I think these names should be kept for now. | |
| 93719311 by gps4200 @ 2020-11-07 20:12 | 1 | 2024-02-28 01:08 | Minh Nguyen | I’m pretty sure this was actually a poorly formatted attempt at tagging the rest of the street address. The addresses are located on đường số 22 (street number 22) off of đường Tăng Nhơn Phú (Tang Nhon Phu street). |
| 146051534 by stevea @ 2024-01-09 05:12 | 1 | 2024-02-24 22:38 | Minh Nguyen | 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 ♦304 | 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 | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-counties-and-planning-regions-in-connecticut/109799 | |
| 142123640 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-10-04 03:13 | 1 | 2023-10-24 08:31 | csomerville ♦39 | Hello Minh Nguyen. I noticed you tagged barrier=kerb + kerb=rolled. This has caused OSRM to no longer route on these roads. It seems to be a bug. Would you be willing to follow up with OSRM team? |
| 2 | 2023-10-24 17:24 | Minh Nguyen | I used the iD preset for rolled curbs. The bug in OSRM is being tracked in https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/6582 . | |
| 3 | 2023-10-28 08:57 | csomerville ♦39 | Just stumbled upon 6582 myself and came to share but you've already beat me to the punch. Kudos.Now, based on a review of street side imagery, aerial imagery, and USGS 3DEPElevation multidirectional hill shade visualization, I don't believe there is a rolled curb here. I believe it is ... | |
| 4 | 2024-02-27 06:06 | Minh Nguyen | Sorry for the delayed response. I don’t think you’d be able to tell a curb from a painted line in 3DEP. Anyhow, you’re right, these are clearly just red painted lines, judging from Bing Streetside imagery. Fixed in changeset 147958271. | |
| 142055828 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-10-02 20:21 | 1 | 2024-02-08 01:47 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | What is the usefulness of having this relation? To me it seems like unnecessary complexity for maintenance etc.. |
| 2 | 2024-02-08 02:07 | Minh Nguyen | This roundabout cannot be represented by a single closed way because of the routes that traverse it only partially. Including the entire roundabout in one of these routes would inaccurately indicate a loop (and also cause some editors to scramble the member order). Since there’s still only one... | |
| 3 | 2024-02-14 00:36 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | In my opinion this is essentially duplicate data especially since the major routers on OSM work perfectly without it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_elementSince it was proposed in 2007 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Junctions and only has 1400 uses I don�... | |
| 4 | 2024-02-14 01:28 | Minh Nguyen | I would concede that a junction relation is inessential for a minor, unnamed roundabout such as this. However, I don’t think this mapping style is completely superfluous.Again, the only reason I bothered creating a relation here is that I had to split the closed way into five ways for accu... | |
| 142503902 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-10-13 04:15 | 1 | 2024-01-22 00:27 | Jordan Moldow ♦10 | Somehow the map of the history walk medallions ended up with an extra node: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1GgO . There are two identical nodes, at different GPS coordinates, for "1870–1872 Vine Street Chinatown". I don't believe any medallions are missing; I counted 13 medallions ... |
| 2 | 2024-01-22 00:32 | Minh Nguyen | You’re right, I must’ve duplicated that one, forgot it, and duplicated it again as a starting point for the next medallion. Thanks for your vigilance. Fixed in changeset 146532532. | |
| 104391694 by Minh Nguyen @ 2021-05-09 10:46 | 1 | 2024-01-07 12:11 | osmuser63783 ♦62 | Hi, I'm creating a Wiki page for amenity=lounge, after looking at how the tag is being used. The overwhelming number of cases are for airport lounges, so I was wondering if there is a better tag for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8714553104? |
| 2 | 2024-01-07 17:02 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for looking into amenity=lounge. I agree we need a tag for lounges – not just for airport lounges, but also for less exclusive lounges, like at train stations. That said, judging from http://morganhillbowl.com/strixe.html , I think this one might be better described as a sports bar. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-13 07:50 | osmuser63783 ♦62 | Thanks! The Wiki page has since been improved to make clear it isn't just about airports.We can change this object to amenity=bar then, with bar:type=sports_bar, following a suggestion on the old help site, unless you have a better idea? | |
| 4 | 2024-01-13 08:05 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks, that’s definitely an improvement. I retagged the POI in changeset 146205486.Since the linked proposal mentioned hotels, I wonder if I should also use it for a dormitory lounge like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8562709678 . I’ve previously used amenity=clubhouse, but tha... | |
| 145750655 by Joseph R P @ 2024-01-01 02:19 | 1 | 2024-01-13 02:54 | Minh Nguyen | Looks like the individual ways got added to the I-11 superrelation instead of the northbound and southbound route relations. They need to be moved to these relations:https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14104671https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14104672 |
| 2 | 2024-01-13 05:43 | Joseph R P ♦342 | Dammit, thanks for letting me know. I'll fix it.Normally I catch myself just before I add objects to the super relation, but the one time it was a big edit I slip up. | |
| 145714639 by OSM1969 @ 2023-12-30 22:02 Active block | 1 | 2023-12-31 06:52 | willkmis ♦173 | Hi! It looks like you're making quite a large number of road classification changes across the LA area over the past couple days. Some of them seem perfectly fine to me (like upgrading Beverly Glen to secondary, or a lot of the various tertiary edits). But I don't agree with this change up... |
| 2 | 2023-12-31 17:55 | OSM1969 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-04 06:17 | willkmis ♦173 | Hi,Happy new year to you as well! Thanks for the additional information, and for including the citations on your changesets that I've seen in the last few days. I am familiar with the Caltrans map you linked to, having referenced it extensively when drafting the CA trunk classification guidel... | |
| 4 | 2024-01-04 06:22 | willkmis ♦173 | PS if you can't tell, I've been thinking about OSM road classifications for a while, so forgive me for my hot takes/strident opinions. I actually wrote up a whole diary entry on what I learned from my efforts to reclassify roads in LA (some of which you've now reverted) here: https://... | |
| 5 | 2024-01-07 00:02 | Minh Nguyen | There was never a solid consensus about consistently using highway=trunk to denote an expressway. In 2022, the project decided that expressway=yes is the tag for an expressway, not highway=trunk, at least in the U.S. | |
| 6 | 2024-01-07 01:30 | OSM1969 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 7 | 2024-01-07 17:17 | Minh Nguyen | Other than highway=motorway, the highway=* key does indicate a functional classification of sorts, just not necessarily the classifications that Caltrans has determined using the FHWA’s framework. There are various reasons for this, including different incentives like funding levels.There ... | |
| 145638638 by Jordan Moldow @ 2023-12-28 21:58 | 1 | 2023-12-29 05:30 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks! |
| 145349201 by yopaseopor @ 2023-12-20 22:51 | 1 | 2023-12-24 09:21 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,could you point me to the documentation and discussion of this massive retagging of tens of thousands of traffic signs in Spain? |
| 2 | 2023-12-24 09:40 | yopaseopor ♦68 | Yes sure,you can find it in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Extended_traffic_signs_taggingandhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signHuman readable values are the most used in OSM as taginfo says so we need other tag when we want to maintain also the national id of t... | |
| 3 | 2023-12-24 09:47 | mueschel ♦6,567 | That's a 6 year old abandoned proposal that has never been discussed or voted on. A huge edit like this that replaces a well established tag needs to be discussed and agreed on between all the users of the tag - currently almost 30,000 traffic signs in Spain are lost to any application that... | |
| 4 | 2023-12-28 18:33 | Minh Nguyen | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/large-scale-change-of-traffic-sign-to-traffic-sign-id/107508 | |
| 145386988 by Jordan Moldow @ 2023-12-21 22:09 | 1 | 2023-12-26 08:07 | Minh Nguyen | https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/103779 maps the history of this space, including Jimbo’s and Tengu Sushi that merged into JT Express and the upcoming Spread. I think we can safely remove the data about JT Express from OSM now; nothing actually supports the date suffix tags, despite... |
| 2 | 2023-12-26 23:43 | Jordan Moldow ♦10 | I'm fine removing the Jimbo's reference and most of the JT Express references, but I feel like we should leave at least one JT Express reference until Spread finishes construction and opens to the public. Locals will probably still refer to that location as JT Express until that happens. W... | |
| 3 | 2023-12-27 01:30 | Minh Nguyen | I’d keep “JT Express” in old_name and any other defunct attributes you think are still relevant in disused:*=* tags.I think it should be feasible for OHM to support more login providers besides OpenID. Feel free to file a request at https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/i... | |
| 4 | 2023-12-28 09:00 | Minh Nguyen | Looks like the GitHub authentication option was removed in https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/issues/389 because it wasn’t set up correctly and no one had been asking for it. | |
| 5 | 2023-12-28 22:11 | Jordan Moldow ♦10 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145638638 | |
| 145404433 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-12-22 12:12 | 1 | 2023-12-23 08:41 | Minh Nguyen | Moved to OpenHistoricalMap in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/103581 |
| 144886371 by Black_Diamond @ 2023-12-08 03:00 | 1 | 2023-12-08 18:11 | impiaaa ♦420 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flag:type says that "regional" is correct to refer to states, "state" is not. |
| 2 | 2023-12-08 19:19 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | It's likely that the documentation is out of sync with the editor. The OpenStreetMap iD editor provides state as a valid value.This issue is typically highlighted as "Similar values national and regional in flag:type=national;regional". This isn't an issue when it's usin... | |
| 3 | 2023-12-09 23:15 | impiaaa ♦420 | Remember that validator warnings are just that, warnings. They're there to tell you that you might have made a mistake while mapping, not that something is mapped "wrong." | |
| 4 | 2023-12-10 01:49 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | Yes I’m aware of that. | |
| 5 | 2023-12-12 18:13 | Minh Nguyen | iD is just listing the most common values of flag:type from taginfo. The typical tagging for U.S. state flags is flag:type=regional, not state. flag:type=state is mostly used for the other kind of state flag, as in the flag of a government, as opposed to a civil flag. We don’t generally make t... | |
| 6 | 2023-12-12 18:46 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | Actually it does both common values (black) and supported values (blue). Since there is disagreement, I'll revert this change. | |
| 7 | 2023-12-12 18:47 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | Never mind, it looks like you already reverted it. | |
| 8 | 2023-12-12 18:51 | Minh Nguyen | Someone should probably start a forum discussion eventually about whether flag:type is even necessary on features that already have flag:wikidata, since Wikidata’s flag items convey these distinctions a lot better. It’s not as though a national flag is automatically larger or less worn o... | |
| 144925299 by Black_Diamond @ 2023-12-09 06:47 | 1 | 2023-12-12 18:09 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for going through and resolving these discrepancies! |
| 144810285 by SammySpartan @ 2023-12-06 00:23 | 1 | 2023-12-07 02:45 | Minh Nguyen | 'Hi, thanks for taking a look at this part of the map! In the past, we’ve gone back and forth about whether South Campus should be conjoined to the main campus somehow, but the general sentiment is that it should remain as a separate map feature. Both South Campus and the International Ho... |
| 138282510 by Sam Wilson @ 2023-07-09 03:07 | 1 | 2023-10-29 13:09 | ProfAcclaim ♦1 | This has broken all relevant road maps on Wikipedia. They now don't render correctly. |
| 2 | 2023-10-29 21:25 | Minh Nguyen | That’s a bug in Wikimedia’s geoline service. [1] As a workaround, you can still query for one of these relations, convert it to GeoJSON, and upload it to Commons. The AARoads Wiki (a fork of Wikipedia) has a decent tutorial for creating these maps [2], although Wikimedia’s Kartogra... | |
| 3 | 2023-11-26 08:51 | Pikse ♦199 | With or without geoline service support, why type=route was changed to type=street here? The latter is documented as a complex relation type "to group all the elements that make up a street together" (buildings included). Here all relations appear to include only the road itself which is w... | |
| 4 | 2023-11-26 09:22 | Minh Nguyen | I guess the context for this change was https://wikis.world/@samwilson/111084626354658237, which incidentally sparked some discussion in OSMUS Slack: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1695020657752419 .An individual street isn’t quite the same thing as a route (in the plain Engli... | |
| 5 | 2023-11-26 11:21 | Pikse ♦199 | In my experience it's quite common that tag names can be confusing if taken literally, and it's always a good idea to check from documentation to know when to use which tag. In other parts of the world, unlike in US, major roads necessarily aren't named as "routes" either. A... | |
| 6 | 2023-11-26 11:41 | Minh Nguyen | Tagging for highway routes in Australia is documented at [1]. That section doesn’t discuss route names specifically, but those numbered routes very frequently come with signposted names that are distinct from the names of the streets that carry the route. This is similar to the distinction bet... | |
| 7 | 2023-11-26 12:39 | Pikse ♦199 | Earlier I spotted that a couple of relations here used route=road, but indeed now I see that some also used route=street.If I get this OSRM code correctly then this is specific to some hardcoded US routes not to route=road in general, right?I see that major roads in Australia are also named ... | |
| 8 | 2023-11-26 23:27 | Minh Nguyen | The OSRM code I linked to is a test case proving the existence of behavior that is uniform globally. The code that implements it lives elsewhere.The Australia tagging guidelines don’t discourage using route=road for ordinary streets because of common sense. Again, the use of “route&r... | |
| 9 | 2023-11-26 23:57 | Minh Nguyen | I posted to the Oceania forum to give local mappers an opportunity to chime in:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/streets-as-street-relations/106436 | |
| 10 | 2023-11-27 01:57 | Sam Wilson ♦33 | Hi everyone, thanks for this interesting discussion! I seems I was wrong about my newly-learnt idea that type=route was *not* to be used just to collate road parts together. I thought type=street was the way to go, but I'm very happy to switch all these back to type=route with route=road.Th... | |
| 11 | 2023-11-27 02:02 | Minh Nguyen | Honestly I was confused about that too until the other Americans hit me with a cluebat in the thread linked above. 😅 I was aware of railway routes also being an oddball, but I thought that was type=railway, not type=route route=railway. | |
| 144255632 by jrm2020 @ 2023-11-20 17:10 | 1 | 2023-11-21 04:04 | rickmastfan67 ♦234 | I'm sorry, but you're wrong. FHWA MUST sign off on all Interstates before they are posted, as they need to be up to current Interstate standards. Construction @ Exits 1, 2 & 14 must be completed before KYTC can even talk to the FHWA to even post I-69 between Exits 1 & 21. This ... |
| 2 | 2023-11-21 04:18 | rickmastfan67 ♦234 | Here's even an official post from KYTC. It can't be I-69 till the earliest @ December 15, 2024, and that's if the FHWA signs off on the upgrades as being acceptable as Interstate standard. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/KYTC/bulletins/34f19bf | |
| 3 | 2023-11-21 05:51 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset was mentioned in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/ky-i-69-purchase-parkway-issues/106196 | |
| 4 | 2023-11-21 05:57 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, the community appreciates it when you provide a descriptive comment with each changeset, rather than repeating something generic each time: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments | |
| 5 | 2023-11-21 06:57 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144273482 per comments here and on talk-us mailing list description | |
| 6 | 2023-11-21 06:58 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | also, due to making this edit without responding to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143446434 (and ignoring it in general) | |
| 143982160 by Black_Diamond @ 2023-11-13 18:29 | 1 | 2023-11-14 18:13 | impiaaa ♦420 | To be clear, vehicle capacity alone doesn't determine the class of road. Connectivity is more important. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#Classification Though I don't know the specific area well so I can't say for sure whether... |
| 2 | 2023-11-14 19:12 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | I would say that it's similar to Vallco and Miller Ave. It has more lanes than Pruneridge. The Apple Park Store at the corner of Pruneridge and Tantau is a popular tourist destination. The east entrance to Apple Park is on Tantau. Apple Park probably has more than 12,000 employees and 14,200 pa... | |
| 3 | 2023-11-15 09:20 | Minh Nguyen | North Tantau did become more important after Pruneridge got truncated to make room for Apple Park. However, I think it might still be affected by the reclassification efforts currently underway across the South Bay. So far, more roads have gotten demoted than promoted, especially in South San Jos&ea... | |
| 4 | 2023-11-15 15:13 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | Yeah, demoting Wolfe between Stevens Creek and Homestead seems reasonable. It’s more like Vallco, Homestead and this segment of Tantau. That Wolfe segment seems lesser than Stevens Creek.Though South Tantau should be more than a residential road, like a tertiary road. This segment of North... | |
| 5 | 2023-11-15 15:45 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | Also Wolfe is more similar to Homestead. | |
| 6 | 2023-11-15 18:36 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 144063434 demotes Wolfe between Homestead and Stevens Creek back down to secondary.I would keep South Tantau as tertiary, given its centerline stripe and right of way at most intersections. So far, I’m seeing tertiary take on a wider range of physical characteristics than before,... | |
| 140659405 by Black_Diamond @ 2023-09-01 03:17 | 1 | 2023-09-01 17:43 | impiaaa ♦420 | It was correct before. Two separate traffic signs should be mapped as two separate nodes, even if they're on top of each other. |
| 2 | 2023-09-01 17:54 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | When I edited this with the OpenStreetMap editor, it merged the points automatically. I assume that is the desired behavior, since the editor merged them. There were previously warnings about the points overlapping. The first attempted fix was to add layer values to each sign, but this merging seem... | |
| 3 | 2023-11-15 10:42 | Minh Nguyen | The merged node is nonsensical. Since when does a street lamp have a frequency of 1670 kHz?https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144045989 | |
| 4 | 2023-11-15 11:28 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 144047223 restores the street lamp and separates the signs by layer.The documentation for traffic_sign doesn’t really consider the possibility of keys besides traffic_sign on a traffic sign node. Mapping separate nodes isn’t uncommon, and it is common to separate them using... | |
| 5 | 2023-11-15 16:36 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | When you put it that way, it makes sense. Thanks for the change. | |
| 143958979 by Black_Diamond @ 2023-11-13 07:58 | 1 | 2023-11-13 17:18 | impiaaa ♦420 | Way 1223146051 is incorrect. Only physically separate roads can be separate ways. Lanes, connectivity, and turn restrictions should use their appropriate relation types. |
| 2 | 2023-11-13 17:58 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | While that is true, I couldn't find a restriction that could leave the left turn lanes alone on Stevens Creek. The only restriction is that you can't have a vehicle go from North Tantau to South Tantau. The bicycle route goes both ways. You can turn left and right from Stevens Creek on to ... | |
| 3 | 2023-11-13 18:18 | impiaaa ♦420 | Turn restriction relations can restrict going straight through an intersection, and can restrict specific types of vehicle: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restrictionIf the tags on a node in a way only apply to one side or one direction, that can be indicated with a suffix on the k... | |
| 4 | 2023-11-13 18:40 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | How do you apply the restriction on a path through 2 nodes instead of a single node? The only alternative that I could think was to merge both Stevens Creek connections on Tantau into a single point, but that makes the route no longer follow the flow of traffic. The current paths do model the flow o... | |
| 5 | 2023-11-13 19:13 | impiaaa ♦420 | The restriction relation page has examples of how to use the "via" member role: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Members | |
| 6 | 2023-11-13 21:36 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | So apparently in the editor, here is what I had to do:1) Select all relevant nodes and lines. You will have to use the shift key when selecting them.2) Select "add to a relation".3) Sort all nodes and lines from start to finish. A member may be included more than once, and those shou... | |
| 7 | 2023-11-14 05:57 | impiaaa ♦420 | Thanks! | |
| 8 | 2023-11-15 09:31 | Minh Nguyen | Regarding the traffic signals: I’ve also been moving traffic signals to the stopline lately. This is a reversal from what I had previously done. Both styles are valid, and both come with tradeoffs for renderers and routers. But this area has so many unusual intersections where only the stoplin... | |
| 143559931 by tguen @ 2023-11-03 06:46 | 1 | 2023-11-08 07:14 | Minh Nguyen | What’s so bad about micromapping? Now the crossing is rather misleading: to a pedestrian, it’s as if there are random curbs in the middle of the road. |
| 2 | 2023-11-09 02:57 | tguen ♦86 | What's "wrong" with micromapping depends on what's being mapped. Usually it's harmless, such as trees & fences in residential areas. In regards to highways, it adds unnecessary complexity which makes routing and QC more difficult. In many cases it provides no value, such... | |
| 3 | 2023-11-09 02:59 | tguen ♦86 | Maybe "bad" wasn't the right word, but it's not good either. | |
| 4 | 2023-11-09 08:26 | Minh Nguyen | I can see how the dual carriageways around the traffic islands looked out of place, but they did adhere to a literal reading of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway and what’s sometimes referred to as the “physical separation principle” – that some physical ba... | |
| 5 | 2023-11-09 23:16 | archpdx ♦542 | I originally split some of these islands into dual carriageways as other traffic islands on Foster that were there before the road diet (ie Foster/Cora) were already mapped as dual carriageways. Also, at least to me, it didn't really make sense to have the crossing node in the middle of the ref... | |
| 95898921 by ldonahue25 @ 2020-12-15 20:22 | 1 | 2023-11-04 18:38 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, was the renaming of “Remington Pond” to “Pond Pond” intentional? It’s a rather amusing name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48250550/history |
| 137774624 by ramredda @ 2023-06-26 05:40 | 1 | 2023-11-03 04:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, this changeset is incorrect. There was already a link road, but you replaced it with one that incorrectly curves around as if there’s a physical separation between the left turn lane and the through lanes. The previous link road respected the turn lane tags that were present. I’m rev... |
| 2 | 2023-11-03 12:42 | ramredda ♦1 | Hello Minh,Thank you for looking into my changeset and modifying the road geometry. The edit was made based on the lane markings present in Bing Imageries. Apologies for adding incorrect link road. Assuring you that these mistakes will be avoided going forward. Thanking you once again for rectif... | |
| 3 | 2023-11-03 16:16 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for the quick response. Yes, I realize you were looking at the lane markings. I’m not sure if your team’s policy accounts for this, but a solid lane divider marking normally isn’t enough to justify drawing a separate link road that branches off; that’s what the turn... | |
| 4 | 2023-11-10 19:53 | deepikja ♦58 | Hello,Thank you for reviewing the edit and sharing your valuable suggestions. We sincerely apologize for the improper modifications that were by our editor. I did the necessary checks and identified that the editor needed to change the lane count on the northbound lane in addition to adding the li... | |
| 143188547 by Black_Diamond @ 2023-10-27 02:01 | 1 | 2023-10-27 05:57 | Minh Nguyen | Subarea relation members aren’t really a good idea overall; this is what spatial queries are for… |
| 2 | 2023-10-27 07:33 | Black_Diamond ♦59 | I was matching the same relationship style as the California and Santa Clara County subarea relationship. | |
| 142833296 by kevinajames95 @ 2023-10-19 19:40 Active block | 1 | 2023-10-24 05:25 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, please see this guide for the standard tags for each route network:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging/RoutesIn this case, future I-27 would be tagged network=US:I:Future and ref=27, not network=US:I and ref=I-27 (which would imply a present-day Interstate I-2... |
| 2 | 2023-10-24 05:28 | Minh Nguyen | Also, the AARoads Wiki maintains a variation of this style that makes certain routes easier to follow at a glance; it makes use of the same standard tagging:https://aaroads-wiki.github.io/openstreetmap-americana/ | |
| 3 | 2023-10-24 17:48 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in changeset 143076741. | |
| 142515759 by danieldegroot2 @ 2023-10-13 10:07 | 1 | 2023-10-13 17:16 | impiaaa ♦420 | The name:etymology:wikipedia and operator:wikipedia you added don't match the name:etymology:wikidata and operator:wikidata that were already there |
| 2 | 2023-10-14 15:38 | danieldegroot2 ♦674 | They are a fallback. You can remove them if they aren't relevant enough. | |
| 3 | 2023-10-14 17:43 | danieldegroot2 ♦674 | Let me know which tags to remove from which objects and I'll remove them when I have time. Thanks for reviewing the changeset. | |
| 4 | 2023-10-14 18:38 | Minh Nguyen | Fallbacks don’t always work well, because bots go around replacing the more specific Wikidata tags with less specific ones based on the Wikipedia tags (e.g., changeset 140125562). | |
| 5 | 2023-10-14 19:24 | Minh Nguyen | I don’t consider the Wikipedia links to be essential, but for completeness’ sake since they have been added:• Created <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinlenville> and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_Department_of_Parks,_Recreation_%26_Neighborhood_Services&... | |
| 6 | 2023-10-24 04:02 | Minh Nguyen | Annnd… article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinlenville | |
| 142452964 by impiaaa @ 2023-10-11 21:10 | 1 | 2023-10-22 07:16 | Minh Nguyen | Added to OpenHistoricalMap in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/95544 |
| 142614914 by danieldegroot2 @ 2023-10-15 12:10 | 1 | 2023-10-15 20:18 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for detailing these historic neighborhoods. It would be better to add this detail to OpenHistoricalMap – not only the place POI but also the streets and buildings. Here’s a starting point: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/node/2106979221 I’d love to have your help in bu... |
| 2 | 2023-10-22 07:15 | Minh Nguyen | Added more of Heinlenville in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/95544 and Pinoytown in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/95545 | |
| 125871223 by MychalM @ 2022-09-06 18:39 | 1 | 2023-10-18 04:43 | Minh Nguyen | Thought you might be interested to know that one map style was rendering these emoji, though ideally it would render something more faithful to the logos:https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/openstreetmap-americana/issues/451#issuecomment-1169406462 |
| 129666892 by jrm2020 @ 2022-12-03 06:36 | 1 | 2023-06-28 17:11 | clay_c ♦489 | Hi jrm2020,Has the Purchase Parkway been fully signed as Interstate 69 now? Or does this segment still have "Future I-69" signs? I couldn't find any news articles online saying that the extension was complete. |
| 2 | 2023-08-28 20:50 | clay_c ♦489 | Hi again. I haven't seen a response from you, so I went ahead and removed ref="I 69" from the roadway. Much of the roadway was already tagged with noref=yes and fut_ref="I 69", so in the future, once this highway finally gets the Interstate designation, make sure to remove t... | |
| 3 | 2023-10-18 04:14 | Minh Nguyen | This also removed “name=Purchase Parkway” from many but not all of the ways, resulting in haphazard rendering in the OSM Americana style. | |
| 141793450 by Vaasan @ 2023-09-26 21:56 | 1 | 2023-10-16 22:18 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, the Route Number field (ref key) is only for signposted route numbers. The route numbers you added were already present, but in the unsigned_ref key so that they wouldn’t confuse motorists who are looking at signs on the ground. |
| 2 | 2023-10-16 22:19 | Minh Nguyen | These refs are unsignposted and were already in unsigned_ref.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142685666 | |
| 141518463 by Harrison S @ 2023-09-20 15:05 | 1 | 2023-10-14 09:20 | xephos1one ♦30 | Hi.Please be more careful in your changesets when reclassifying the roads so you don't forget some sections like way/8964059, way/552591047 and some others.Also you downgraded some mayor roads in residential areas and others from secondary straight to residential - tertiary would be the bet... |
| 2 | 2023-10-15 00:25 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 142595843 promotes the minor through streets to highway=tertiary. | |
| 142498123 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-10-12 21:37 | 1 | 2023-10-13 10:18 | danieldegroot2 ♦674 | Hey Minh,I've added some details inhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142515759( Changes: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=142515759 )Let me know what you think.impiaaa adviced against adding an address earlier as most of the other city parks don't have one an... |
| 2 | 2023-10-14 19:11 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for taking an interest in this neighborhood!I agree that many of the city’s parks lack an address [1], but this park has a different address than either of the apartment buildings in the complex [2], because the block was subdivided into parcels with addresses long before the par... | |
| 3 | 2023-10-14 19:26 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 142589542 adds the apartment buildings’ addresses and also restores the overall development’s landuse area, which had gotten conflated with the plot next to the park where the Center for Creative Arts is being built. | |
| 140214498 by stephenms3 @ 2023-08-22 07:30 | 1 | 2023-08-25 05:36 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thank you for taking the time to contribute this historical data. Unfortunately, historical data is ineligible for inclusion in OpenStreetMap. The good news is that our companion project OpenHistoricalMap welcomes historical rail data and is better suited for it. Would you mind contributing this... |
| 2 | 2023-08-25 05:37 | Minh Nguyen | To get started with OpenHistoricalMap, go to:https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/You can find out more about the project at:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenHistoricalMap | |
| 3 | 2023-10-10 19:07 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 142281921 removes the route and merges the stations with still-extant features on the ground. Please do let me know if you’d like any help contributing this information to OpenHistoricalMap. | |
| 140125562 by Mateusz Konieczny - bot account @ 2023-08-20 10:08 | 1 | 2023-10-09 15:59 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset discarded a more precise Wikidata item in favor of a less precise one based on a Wikipedia article that covers multiple topics. The topics are covered in a single article because the individual topics are not considered notable enough by Wikipedia standards. To prevent this issue from... |
| 2 | 2023-10-10 07:26 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Thanks! | |
| 140827113 by colemanerik @ 2023-09-05 00:55 | 1 | 2023-09-25 17:43 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for reviewing this intersection. Note that any separate link way for a turn lane should begin at the “gore”, where a physical barrier begins, not where a solid painted line begins. The change:lanes tag is how we indicate a lane change restriction. https://wiki.openstreetmap.or... |
| 2 | 2023-09-25 17:48 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway ; will reapply any necessary realignment.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141742188 | |
| 3 | 2023-09-26 00:19 | colemanerik ♦3 | So if no barrier means it isn't separated, then does that mean at Jager Court and Nimitzview Drive shouldn't be separated? Isn't the overall idea of OSM to be as detailed as possible? | |
| 4 | 2023-09-26 03:12 | Minh Nguyen | The intersections at Jager and Nimitzview are modeled as dual carriageways as an exception to the physical separation principle, as detailed in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriagewayI agree that this may not seem very consistent, but this is what data consumers have come to expect ... | |
| 5 | 2023-09-26 03:22 | Minh Nguyen | I see what you mean about those intersections being undivided for a similar length. If they were modeled as single carriageways, it would probably be OK, but you’d have to update a number of lane-level tags accordingly.The main problem with dividing the Beechmont intersection into a dual c... | |
| 140827652 by colemanerik @ 2023-09-05 01:34 | 1 | 2023-09-25 17:50 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway ; will reapply any necessary realignment.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141742251 |
| 137937119 by two_wheels @ 2023-06-29 23:44 | 1 | 2023-09-23 19:12 | Minh Nguyen | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141657991 adds the appropriate tags and cuts a gap in the road to ensure that routers won’t send drivers into the tree or into the creek. |
| 141368586 by bouzinac @ 2023-09-17 06:51 | 1 | 2023-09-17 08:30 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, most of your changeset comments are only a single letter long, which isn’t very descriptive. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments On the other hand, if you’re experiencing a bug in iD that’s truncating your changeset comments, please let the developers kn... |
| 141025334 by xephos1one @ 2023-09-09 13:54 | 1 | 2023-09-15 17:13 | Minh Nguyen | Please be careful remodeling intersections to include dual carriageways. This changeset appears to have broken a number of route relations. Additionally, the “tuning fork” or “pencil tip” modeling that led to this breakage is controversial globally and not preferred among map... |
| 2 | 2023-09-16 10:25 | xephos1one ♦30 | Thanks for notifying me about the missing relation, I can't find any other broken ones besides the one you told me about on Discord that you fixed already.I always check on any relations that might be impacted by my edits, this one seems to have slipped through. I'll double check them fr... | |
| 3 | 2023-09-16 23:19 | Minh Nguyen | The terminology is a bit confusing; I think “pencil tip” actually refers to the style you applied. TomTom and Mapbox have historically been the main proponents of this style, though Mapbox is no longer active in mapping intersections.As mentioned in that forum thread, routers have lo... | |
| 133645751 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-03-14 00:06 | 1 | 2023-09-07 18:18 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Is it now safe to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7413032778 ? |
| 2 | 2023-09-07 21:10 | Minh Nguyen | Moved to OpenHistoricalMap in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/86325 and deleted from OSM in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140958637 | |
| 3 | 2023-09-08 13:56 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Thanks! | |
| 129787222 by ZioDragon @ 2022-12-06 15:12 | 1 | 2023-08-31 21:46 | Minh Nguyen | Chào bạn, các giá trị như VN:CT và VN:QL thật có lý, nhưng các thay đổi này làm cho các bản đồ như OSM Americana không còn nhận ra các tuyến đường QL/CT để hiển thị số đườn... |
| 133057437 by skquinn @ 2023-02-26 19:53 | 1 | 2023-08-29 18:41 | Minh Nguyen | Did you mean to tag this entire building as a McDonald’s flag? |
| 2 | 2023-08-29 21:50 | skquinn ♦804 | No, I'm not sure how that happened. | |
| 3 | 2023-08-30 02:41 | skquinn ♦804 | Fixed, see changeset 140556052 | |
| 139633204 by pixelpete @ 2023-08-08 22:44 | 1 | 2023-08-19 05:37 | Minh Nguyen | Hi Pete, thanks for all the wonderful contributions you’ve made in this area. Have you considered contributing some of this historical information to OpenHistoricalMap as well? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenHistoricalMap There’s so much left to map over there that would complem... |
| 2 | 2023-08-19 17:54 | pixelpete ♦1 | Thank you for the input Minh. I’ll go ahead and do that. | |
| 131982043 by beddy @ 2023-02-01 23:41 | 1 | 2023-08-15 03:18 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, looks like this changeset included a few buildings that are identical to each other, in the exact same spot. I’m not sure how that happened, or why RapiD didn’t warn you about it when you added them in from the Microsoft Buildings dataset. Anyhow, changeset 139895241 deletes the two ... |
| 2 | 2023-08-15 21:09 | beddy ♦5 | Thanks for catching this! I thought I had cleaned up all the changelists that this happened on, but one day when saving (perhaps it was a slow connection), it saved the CL 2-3 times. I'll go over with the issue check features in rapid and make sure there are not any other erroneous changes fr... | |
| 125979057 by Anton Valodzin @ 2022-09-09 12:00 | 1 | 2023-07-27 05:19 | Minh Nguyen | Removing ref=RM 1431 was incorrect. It hasn’t been FM 1431 since 1956. |
| 2 | 2023-07-27 05:28 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in changeset 139067157. | |
| 3 | 2023-07-27 07:00 | Anton Valodzin ♦18 | Hi! Thank you for finding the error in the edit. | |
| 138874125 by Imzadi1979 @ 2023-07-22 23:14 | 1 | 2023-07-23 12:28 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hi,Thanks for your contributions, but in OSM most roads do not need a relation, they only need a relation if they are signed roads (county, state, interstate, etc). |
| 2 | 2023-07-25 04:34 | Minh Nguyen | If you want a relation representation for this road, there is an experimental “street” relation type, though you’d have to manually replace type=route with type=street in iD. | |
| 135096633 by emersonveenstra @ 2023-04-19 10:34 | 1 | 2023-07-18 14:32 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, is “OLD 31” signposted anywhere? This changeset seems to have introduced ref=OLD 31 as an alternative to old_ref=US 31, unless I’m misreading the history. |
| 2 | 2023-07-18 15:15 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | it was a straight revert, so it shouldn't have added anything new. Do you have a link to a way where it wasn't there before? | |
| 3 | 2023-07-18 15:31 | Minh Nguyen | I think every way in this changeset was affected, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1119506496 | |
| 4 | 2023-07-18 15:33 | Minh Nguyen | Looking at the history, you weren’t responsible for adding the tag originally, but your revert effectively added it back in. Please be careful using the reverter plugin; sometimes the mapper you’re reverting says they’re only changing one thing, but in fact they’re changing a... | |
| 5 | 2023-07-18 16:16 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Sure, but that's assuming that it was incorrectly added in the first place, which is something i'm not able to verify. My thought process was that if it is incorrect, then someone with local knowledge would come along and fix it. | |
| 6 | 2023-07-18 16:59 | Minh Nguyen | I’m not sure that’s fair. If you only disagreed with the highway classification changes, you should’ve only undone those changes without all the others, unless you had reason to believe you were dealing with vandalism, fiction, a copyright violation, or some other bad-faith edit. T... | |
| 7 | 2023-07-18 22:06 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | You're right, I looked back and didn't realize how many other changes there were. I've gone through and undid all the changes not related to the classification | |
| 8 | 2023-07-19 08:40 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you! | |
| 138527040 by woodрeck_reрair @ 2023-07-14 23:20 | 1 | 2023-07-15 03:47 | Rukkhadevata ♦32 | This changeset has been reverted because of destruction of data. |
| 2 | 2023-07-15 03:57 | 快乐的老鼠宝宝 ♦514 | Reverted link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138529459 | |
| 3 | 2023-07-15 05:22 | aliensuperstar ♦13 | White people is so funny. What's a language got to do with sociopolitics? Gosh, I hate the moralistic vandalism these US-Americans do | |
| 4 | 2023-07-15 08:23 | MKnight ♦910 | wtf? | |
| 5 | 2023-07-16 17:06 | Minh Nguyen | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/dwg-username-impersonation/101212 | |
| 6 | 2023-07-19 07:17 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 138537896 where the changeset comment is: See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7313, https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/dwg-username-impersonation/101212 etc. | |
| 118348974 by clay_c @ 2022-03-11 06:27 | 1 | 2023-06-25 16:15 | Minh Nguyen | Should these numbers go in ref rather than name? I suspect most renderers and routers that understand junction names would also understand junction refs. |
| 2 | 2023-06-25 17:01 | clay_c ♦489 | At time of writing, there are over 36,000 objects on OSM with junction=yes + name=* [1]. But there are only 908 instances of junction=yes + ref=* [2], 512 of which also have name=* [3]. Many of these appear to be tagging errors, using the ref=* of a nearby highway.Carto doesn't expose ref=*... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-25 17:33 | Minh Nguyen | Globally, many more intersections are named (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Named_spots_instead_of_street_names ) than numbered in the real world (especially in Japan), so I’m not surprised about the disparity in the database. I had been under the impression that OSRM calls out junction r... | |
| 4 | 2023-06-26 18:09 | clay_c ♦489 | Fine by me. Redundant tagging added here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137803578 | |
| 137533993 by zluuzki @ 2023-06-19 20:17 | 1 | 2023-06-20 02:20 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | Hi, what is the source of this data? One of the features is a very long underground pipeline which I assume is not visible in aerial imagery? |
| 2 | 2023-06-20 05:09 | zluuzki ♦224 | It is visible, from cuttings, valves, pig launchers, meter stations, markers etc... the other details are from the public domain https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/ and other details researched via https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search, a government database containing 2 million regulator... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-23 07:56 | Minh Nguyen | The discussion continues in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/infrastructure-edits-in-usa-such-as-https-www-openstreetmap-org-changeset-137533993/100397 | |
| 137176039 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-06-10 15:18 | 1 | 2023-06-17 01:29 | Minh Nguyen | 👌 |
| 136509801 by traveleditor @ 2023-05-24 17:03 | 1 | 2023-06-13 18:12 | Minh Nguyen | These names were probably place names. Since it’s possible that these names came from a survey that’s difficult to reproduce, consider bringing back the names as place POIs. Otherwise, this changeset results in a loss of information. |
| 76860658 by davidbg42 @ 2019-11-10 06:49 | 1 | 2021-07-27 08:39 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, is the temporary turn restriction still in effect, or can https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10279464 be deleted now? |
| 2 | 2023-06-05 07:01 | Minh Nguyen | Deleted in changeset 136957643; see note 2772893. | |
| 136720086 by marc__marc @ 2023-05-29 23:31 | 1 | 2023-05-30 20:56 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for spotting these license=* tags. A more descriptive key is probably warranted, since ref:license=* isn’t used anywhere else, but we’ll have to consult with the local community on the exact key to use.Technically, these numbers are the numbers of decisions by local governing ... |
| 2 | 2023-05-30 21:05 | Minh Nguyen | Asked in https://www.facebook.com/groups/openstreetmapvietnam/posts/1602562726821377/ | |
| 3 | 2024-08-30 10:14 | marc__marc ♦1,265 | Hello Minh Nguyen,any feedback about ref:licence ? mayb ref:<name of the entity that give the licence number> ?still 6 usecasehttps://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/licenseRegards,Marc | |
| 128962830 by Dogman15 @ 2022-11-15 23:10 | 1 | 2023-05-20 22:58 | Minh Nguyen | Not sure, but some OSM-based renderers do try to depict rooftop solar panels realistically:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/streets-gl-a-new-3d-renderer-for-osm/98594/56 |
| 134521849 by Skydehy @ 2023-04-05 05:37 | 1 | 2023-05-20 21:27 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, it’s correct to tag these solar panel structures as roofs (or more specifically, carports). Updated in changeset 136353699. |
| 119703193 by anilkgba @ 2022-04-14 09:22 | 1 | 2023-04-22 17:06 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, as you redraw roads to be dual carriageways, please remember to align the imagery layer you’re using with other features in the immediate vicinity of your edits. In this changeset, for example, the surrounding roads and other features had been aligned to a high-resolution imagery layer (OS... |
| 2 | 2023-04-25 10:26 | rababdul ♦26 | Hello Minh Nguyen,Thank you for reviewing the changeset and making the necessary corrections. We have provided feedback to the editor to ensure that the future edits are made using latest resources available to avoid such errors. Your help in fixing the issue is greatly appreciated.Regards,\... | |
| 134201988 by jidanni @ 2023-03-28 04:57 | 1 | 2023-03-29 04:24 | Minh Nguyen | Continuing the discussion from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/9565 , access=official is officially deprecated, and the value “official” actually meant the same as “designated”. In other words, you’re saying the service roads are designed to be used by all tr... |
| 2 | 2023-03-29 13:08 | jidanni ♦51 | Thanks! See also https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset/issues/372 | |
| 133378102 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-03-06 20:06 | 1 | 2023-03-06 20:07 | Minh Nguyen | The tagging was discussed on OSMUS Slack: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1677722616750459Even though this isn’t a vet facility that would accept walk-ins, it is a veterinarian who makes house calls. |
| 124429950 by Nadzeya_ @ 2022-08-03 10:40 | 1 | 2023-02-24 00:59 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, please remember to square the corners on buildings. The imagery layer you used is somewhat oblique, so the shapes you see are very skewed compared to reality. |
| 2 | 2023-02-28 07:41 | Nadzeya_ ♦18 | Hi, Minh Nguyen. Thank you for your notice.Please correct the buildings if they are rendered incorrectly as we have no data other than the image which is not clearly visible | |
| 3 | 2023-02-28 08:57 | Minh Nguyen | Yes, I corrected the buildings in changeset 132948807. I used the same imagery as you but interpreted it differently. It’s important to understand how oblique or offset imagery can distort the shapes you see, especially with a pitched or gabled roof.In this case, try comparing Esri and Max... | |
| 4226716 by Minh Nguyen @ 2010-03-25 05:43 | 1 | 2023-02-23 19:04 | Allison P ♦1,136 | Might be good to come back and square these now that we have better editing tools. |
| 2 | 2023-02-27 10:21 | Minh Nguyen | Yep, I’ve got thousands of these buildings in the area that I’m slowly going back and cleaning up – not just squaring but in many cases complely redrawing, because I often mistook one building for two.There’s also the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hamilton_County_Bu... | |
| 132100886 by johnmc318 @ 2023-02-05 08:48 | 1 | 2023-02-27 01:53 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, this changeset unfortunately had several major issues. I tried to manually repair most of the tagging problems in changesets 133062695 and 133064894. However, some things may need your attention:* I restored all the road names you deleted. However, I was unsure about Johnnie Doolittle/Johnny... |
| 132267674 by johnmc318 @ 2023-02-08 17:25 | 1 | 2023-02-09 17:59 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,something went wrong here. You added 2000 nodes without tags, and some that are duplicates of existing ones. Please always use the download function in JOSM and never try to load data from a file!I reverted these changes. |
| 2 | 2023-02-26 21:55 | Minh Nguyen | There were a number of other issues in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132100886 | |
| 132702177 by Minh Nguyen @ 2023-02-18 04:27 | 1 | 2023-02-18 23:20 | Hufkratzer ♦749 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1147258471 looks more like a riding arena to me (pitch + equestrian).https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1147258472 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1147258473 : I don't know, large enough for riding arenas, but look more like paddocks on bing.htt... |
| 2 | 2023-02-19 08:48 | Minh Nguyen | Good catch. I meant to use leisure=pitch sport=equestrian in these cases, though you’re right that some of them look more like paddocks.The translations are fine but I still got confused. Vietnamese has very similar words for “riding arena” (“sân cưỡi ngựa&rdqu... | |
| 13755456 by Minh Nguyen @ 2012-11-05 00:12 | 1 | 2023-02-03 04:45 | watmildon ♦244 | way/189149801 has gnis:feature_id=10/01/1990I've taken the liberty of patching it up for you. ;-) |
| 2 | 2023-02-03 06:43 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks! | |
| 125092305 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-08-19 07:26 | 1 | 2023-01-28 15:25 | DUGA ♦548 | WTF is shared_driveway? |
| 2 | 2023-01-28 16:38 | Minh Nguyen | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems . I’ve been avoiding the term “pipestem” because it’s jargon and it only describes a subset of shared driveways. | |
| 113004622 by VLD160 @ 2021-10-26 17:37 | 1 | 2023-01-22 22:10 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset was reverted in changeset 131583380. A quick Internet search turned up https://www.nm.org/about-us/history/northwestern-medicine-lake-forest-hospital-history , which mentions that the hospital was built on the former Dick family farm. This makes it much more likely that A. B. Dick was... |
| 129765303 by michael60634 @ 2022-12-06 05:11 | 1 | 2022-12-06 05:42 | hoserab ♦191 | Oh hello again, Michael.By "fixing" road names it seems you mean that you're simply "unabbreviating" the quadrant suffixes on all named roads in Calgary.You do know that by convention all street signage and municipal addresses in Calgary always use the two-letter abb... |
| 2 | 2022-12-06 06:35 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Its the norm in OSM to spell out full street names including prefix/suffix. I will see if I can find the wiki entry where this is spelt out. There are lots of things that are different in OSM and it takes a while to get the hang of all the subtleties. | |
| 3 | 2022-12-06 19:57 | hoserab ♦191 | Oh I know precisely what you're talking about tastrax, and absolutely "know the hang of it". You're thinking of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_(don't_do_it).That said, lots of people don't follow that as gospel because it has issues, particul... | |
| 4 | 2022-12-06 20:41 | Viajero Perdido ♦243 | Edmonton is same. My property tax bill shows the street address as "... NW". NW *is* the official name.It took me a while to de-expand the whole city, thanks to that charming import. | |
| 5 | 2022-12-06 20:47 | hoserab ♦191 | You're making it sound like local mappers actually know what the heck they're doing and talking about, fellow traveller.Jeez, I don't know, those local yokels...? :P | |
| 6 | 2022-12-06 20:53 | Viajero Perdido ♦243 | :)And there has been peace in Edmonton ever since. | |
| 7 | 2022-12-06 21:06 | hoserab ♦191 | Ah, but little did you know you Edmontonians are a simpleminded folk who don't know how to name stuff. Ol' Mikey60634 will set you straight, he knows all the official rules. | |
| 8 | 2022-12-08 02:18 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | I would love to see the documentation that hoserab uses to dictate guidelines to others. | |
| 9 | 2022-12-08 02:48 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I see that Vid the Kid’s old essay about abbreviation was mentioned above. For context, Vid wrote it in 2009 when they and I were among a handful of mappers in the Midwest. Back then, there was serious debate among the U.S. community on the merits of expanding the abbreviations that TIGER ... | |
| 10 | 2022-12-08 10:14 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Thank you for your insights, Minh. I agree that it would be nice if people would come to a conclusion that is not based on outdated documentation.Slightly off-topic but maybe still interesting: the Dutch community recently discussed addr:street tags with abbreviated names. The preference at http... | |
| 11 | 2022-12-09 04:16 | hoserab ♦191 | Casper, when you write "I would love to see the documentation that hoserab uses to dictate guidelines to others," I presume you mean the local customs. (I already quoted the relevant excerpts from the OSM wiki.)The 'guideline' that Calgarians would never write out the unabbre... | |
| 12 | 2022-12-09 04:55 | tastrax ♦1,145 | You might like to edit the Canada Tagging Guidelines to reflect change so there is no further issues ... if the community has changed from the suggestion in the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada/Tagging_guidelines#Street_names | |
| 13 | 2022-12-09 05:03 | michael60634 ♦38 | hoserab, I did check the links you sent. For the first link, I can't seem to find any mention that the quadrant must be abbreviated. Maybe I am missing something. The second link is currently down for nightly maintenance, so I'll check tomorrow. And the third link seems to abbreviate every... | |
| 14 | 2022-12-09 05:05 | michael60634 ♦38 | tastrax, according to someone I've been talking to, this is not a Canada-wide tagging issue, but mostly limited to Western Canada and the Prairie Provinces. I'm currently getting more info from that mapper. He's been quite helpful. | |
| 15 | 2022-12-09 05:07 | michael60634 ♦38 | Correction: Western Canada excluding British Columbia. | |
| 16 | 2022-12-09 05:10 | hoserab ♦191 | That comment of mine ^above^ was getting to be a little long, so I've split it as follows.Given all the points I made above, you may be asking yourself, "Okay hoserab, if we shouldn't write the full quadrant names out, why then shouldn't we apply your logic to the street ... | |
| 17 | 2022-12-09 05:16 | hoserab ♦191 | And as one can see, we're not so stupid as to confuse ourselves and already quite consistently keep this straight: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.12028/-114.19910 | |
| 18 | 2022-12-09 05:20 | michael60634 ♦38 | No, I wasn't asking why street types shouldn't be abbreviated. I am point out that on the two currently online sources you provided, everything except the name of the street is abbreviated. And that doesn't help determine whether or not the quadrant is abbreviated.As I said in my ... | |
| 19 | 2022-12-09 05:20 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Its clear to me that there is some sort of 'exception' that seems to occur in this area and has been agreed to by the local 'community'. There are lots of things that OSM does differently to other standards (be they postal addresses standards, utilities etc) so what folks are ask... | |
| 20 | 2022-12-09 05:21 | hoserab ♦191 | Oh and Michael, have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps this is something which doesn't have a Canada-wide consistency for a reason, and that you haven't stumbled across "an issue" because... it's not an issue? I would not presume to know the local naming customs in V... | |
| 21 | 2022-12-09 05:28 | michael60634 ♦38 | Yes, I have considered that. I'm not editing without doing any research whatsoever. It's quite obvious to me that different places have different naming customs. One thing to consider is that not all parts of the world on OSM are updated equally, so there's a good chance that you'... | |
| 22 | 2022-12-09 05:35 | hoserab ♦191 | Oh, tastrax, comments are being added as such a pace that I can't keep up, haha.As Viajero Perdido mentioned farther up the chain, such is the case in Edmonton as well. Typically across all of Alberta it's pretty safe to say if there's a directional suffix at the end of a road nam... | |
| 23 | 2022-12-09 05:44 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Excellent - so document that in the wiki so it can be applied with consistency | |
| 24 | 2022-12-09 05:49 | tastrax ♦1,145 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129765303#map=16/50.0415/-110.6775 | |
| 25 | 2022-12-09 05:56 | hoserab ♦191 | Oh thank you for finding all those errors, tastrax. It appears the user TheMundaneDave took it upon himself to change the names in Medicine Hat, because he was blindly following "openstreetmap policy on abbreviations". (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55014900) Someone ought t... | |
| 26 | 2022-12-09 06:09 | hoserab ♦191 | I'll update the Canada, Alberta and Calgary pages on the wiki; thanks for the suggestion tastrax. Hopefully this will prevent future misunderstandings by eager mappers from elsewhere who are unaware of our local customs. It's late though, past my bed time; I'll try to get around to it... | |
| 27 | 2022-12-09 06:10 | tastrax ♦1,145 | So write down the rule that the local community has agreed to and applies in your special areas and there will be no confusion. You might even consider another address sub key for quadrant? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:* | |
| 28 | 2022-12-09 06:48 | tastrax ♦1,145 | I am sure the local community will be on to those corrections immediately, although they have been there for 5 years. It would be a lot easier to correct if the quadrant was in its own dedicated key. | |
| 129138182 by Mintorpheus7446 @ 2022-11-19 21:00 | 1 | 2022-12-06 01:09 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, please refrain from changing streets and parking lot aisles into golf cart paths. OpenStreetMap needs to remain usable to the general public, not just golfers. The changes in this changeset could have prevented some people from getting routes to this neighborhood by car, or prevented delivery se... |
| 126349722 by Gus2001 @ 2022-09-19 01:33 | 1 | 2022-09-19 02:27 | stevea ♦304 | Our community does have standards for what we map: these include what we can touch and feel in the real world. In the case of boundaries, which are "less of that," but still important data to be in a map, we have all sorts of sub-classes of boundaries. These have emerged over time and w... |
| 2 | 2022-09-19 02:47 | stevea ♦304 | I mean, you could coin boundary=state_fire or something like that, but it's both messy and a tall hill to climb (in my opinion).The "trick" is to get the tags right. It may be that "the community" thinks these are a good idea, if you tag them not boundary=administrative... | |
| 3 | 2022-09-20 03:09 | Minh Nguyen | If I understand correctly, these are essentially divisions of a single government agency (CAL FIRE). It’s much more common to indicate this kind of detail in operator tags of relevant features. For example, each CAL FIRE station within the CZU unit would be tagged:operator=CAL FIRE San Mat... | |
| 4 | 2022-09-20 03:19 | stevea ♦304 | Thanks, Minh. Yes, "divisions of a single government agency," CALFire, the California Department of Forestry.Stations have been known to have less-than-clear signage id-ing them ask CALFire (or however it's styled).I'm all for "green lights ahead for Wikidata approa... | |
| 5 | 2022-10-25 17:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Personally I probably would have been fine with this, at least north of Sacramento, depending on the tags and I'm the main or only mapper in the area. But unfortunately no one consulted me about it.I wouldn't say "the community" was against it though. At least not the local c... | |
| 6 | 2022-10-25 17:14 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Anyway, just to add my two sense, I don't see why Cal Fire administrative boundaries can't or shouldn't be mapped. Personally, I think they would add some value to the map at least north of Sac and I know they use OpenStreetMap for some of their fire mapping. I actually know someone ... | |
| 7 | 2022-10-25 17:17 | Minh Nguyen | I was just making an observation about an alternative that’s currently in use, not laying down the law. 🤷♂️ | |
| 8 | 2022-10-25 17:28 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "I was just making an observation about an alternative that’s currently in use, not laying down the law."Oh I know. I wasn't claiming you where doing anything else. I was just kind of surprised that you didn't add "maybe consult with the locals" while doing it... | |
| 9 | 2022-10-25 17:40 | Minh Nguyen | If I remember correctly, it was actually another mapper who asked Gus to remove these boundaries; it came up in Slack and Discord at some point.In any case, if anyone does decide to restore the CAL FIRE units as boundaries, they would need to be tagged as something other than county boundaries. ... | |
| 10 | 2022-10-25 17:42 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Although, that said it seems like Gus2001 thought "laying down the law" was exactly what both of you were doing since they ultimately deleted the relations and left the changeset comment of "the community" doesn't map these." You can say your "making an observation... | |
| 11 | 2022-10-25 17:51 | Adamant1 ♦222 | "If I remember correctly, it was actually another mapper who asked Gus to remove these boundaries; it came up in Slack and Discord at some point."That's fine. But it's not like your and SteveA comments had zero effect on their decision either and your the person I'm disc... | |
| 12 | 2022-10-25 17:52 | Minh Nguyen | I only chimed in later, after the deletion. (It isn’t possible to comment on a changeset before it gets uploaded.) Gus later reached out to me privately, but I haven’t had the time to explore options with them.These boundaries were added systematically across California, so it isn&rs... | |
| 13 | 2022-10-25 17:52 | Adamant1 ♦222 | *Whole thing being deleted. | |
| 14 | 2022-10-25 18:01 | Adamant1 ♦222 | " only chimed in later, after the deletion. (It isn’t possible to comment on a changeset before it gets uploaded.) Gus later reached out to me privately, but I haven’t had the time to explore options with them."That's fine. "These boundaries were added systema... | |
| 15 | 2022-10-25 18:08 | Minh Nguyen | That’s fair. If the local(s) in Redding would like just the SHU boundary restored – tagged correctly – I don’t think there would be much of a fuss about it. It’d be a different story if someone wanted the whole dataset reimported or wanted to add organizational unit bou... | |
| 16 | 2022-10-25 22:48 | stevea ♦304 | As I said a month ago: the original author/poster (OP) and I had a cordial discussion about this, he agreed to redact his import and "think about it" as he might re-enter these data (or portions of them), and that's where it remains, correctly. It's fine, the OP appears to be d... | |
| 17 | 2022-10-25 23:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <As I said a month ago: the original author/poster (OP) and I had a cordial discussion about this, he agreed to redact his import and "think about it" as he might re-enter these data (or portions of them), and that's where it remains, correctly.That's fine. It doesn't... | |
| 18 | 2022-10-25 23:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <how many repeat incidents does it take to recognize and apply a final remedy to this abuse? You know, I've asked that myself a ton of times, both to you and Woodpeck, but yet neither one of you seem to want back off and stop coming at me. So this is just where we are. I've done mor... | |
| 19 | 2022-10-25 23:15 | stevea ♦304 | See? | |
| 20 | 2022-10-25 23:28 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <If the local(s) in Redding would like just the SHU boundary restored – tagged correctly – I don’t think there would be much of a fuss about it.Cool. Like I said to SteveA, I'm fine waiting until the particulars of the tagging can be figured and then seeing if Gus2001 c... | |
| 21 | 2022-10-25 23:29 | Adamant1 ♦222 | (As a side to that I'd be interested to know how you got the shrug emoji to display since I can't seem to get them to work for some reason) | |
| 122318674 by ❤️🔥 @ 2022-06-13 10:36 | 1 | 2022-10-21 07:52 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for documenting where these no cruising signs are in effect. As of this changeset, by far the most common value of cruising=* contains conditional restriction syntax. Did you mean to use cruising:conditional=* instead? |
| 2 | 2022-10-25 22:40 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | yep, fixed :) | |
| 126101250 by DrDisaster @ 2022-09-12 17:54 | 1 | 2022-10-19 17:37 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, it looks like you’ve been setting “Motor Vehicles” to “designated” on footpaths and bridle trails. This would mean that the trails are mainly intended for cars and other motorized vehicles. It actually causes some routing engines to route people over these trails in... |
| 2 | 2022-10-19 20:37 | DrDisaster ♦7 | It's approved for snow mobiles, but I agree it should be no to routing | |
| 3 | 2022-10-19 23:45 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, OK, to indicate that snowmobiles are allowed, expand the Tags section at the bottom of the sidebar and set “snowmobile” to “yes”. Here’s some documentation about the snowmobile key: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:snowmobile . It doesn’t have a dedicat... | |
| 125870174 by DrDisaster @ 2022-09-06 18:12 | 1 | 2022-10-18 17:11 | wireguy ♦548 | Doctor, can you revisit the changeset and area? Seems that several boundary relations are now not closed, including: Vienna Center, Fowler Township, Vienna Township, Mecca Township, Johnston Township, Mecca, Hartford Township and Bazetta Township.relation 183465relation 14365571relation 14365... |
| 2 | 2022-10-19 20:37 | DrDisaster ♦7 | I'll be honest... I have NO idea what I am doing with respect to township boundaries. | |
| 3 | 2022-10-19 23:42 | Minh Nguyen | Here’s some documentation on mapping townships in Ohio: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Boundaries/Townships | |
| 121425257 by YuliyaShustava_lyft @ 2022-05-24 13:39 | 1 | 2022-10-08 22:23 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, this changeset and others such as 119657559 introduced errors rather than fixing them. Vine St. has two more lanes than you may have recognized in street-level imagery – these can be parking lanes during some times of the day, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Also, the int... |
| 2 | 2022-10-10 14:14 | YuliyaShustava_lyft ♦45 | Hi Minh Nguyen!The purpose of my edits was to remove the extra road since the road marking has been changed and there is no barrier on West Fifth Street near the intersection. In the changeset 121425257 I wanted to make the road smoother. I’m genuinely sorry for missing roads’ levels... | |
| 3 | 2022-10-10 17:53 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for the details, I stand corrected. This is very recent construction. Lately I’ve been feeling confident about the Bing Streetside imagery in the area, which is current to last year, but this construction is even too new for that. Among the publicly available layers, some road construct... | |
| 4 | 2022-10-11 16:46 | YuliyaShustava_lyft ♦45 | Thank you for reverting the changes and for your suggestions! Our sources allow us to improve the OSM with fresh data. Of course, this makes it harder for other mappers to check the map after Lyft edits. So that, we add information in the comments according to what source the edits were made. We che... | |
| 126967459 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-10-04 02:58 | 1 | 2022-10-04 03:20 | Minh Nguyen | Also updated the address in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126968013 |
| 112347029 by Timothy Smith @ 2021-10-10 19:49 | 1 | 2022-10-02 23:03 | Minh Nguyen | FYI, some of the flags had the correct flag:wikidata but a less specific flag:name. (I avoided creating separate NSI entries for them at the time, because I didn’t want these historical flags to be overrepresented in a still small part of the index.) |
| 2 | 2022-10-02 23:24 | Minh Nguyen | Most of the overconflation affected Confederate flags, which, well, are problematic for other reasons anyways. But node 4718501937 is an example of a historical flag of the United Kingdom and Ireland – same flag, different country represented. I’m not sure if it’s worth creati... | |
| 126659246 by vrynkevich_lyft @ 2022-09-26 14:25 | 1 | 2022-09-26 14:48 | GITNE ♦54 | Please, DO NOT create no_u_turn restrictions with identical ways in from and to roles. This type of turn restriction relation DOES NOT add any value to the map. Please learn carefully and understand what turn restrictions are for in OSM before mapping these. Turn restriction relations in OSM map the... |
| 2 | 2022-09-26 23:04 | Minh Nguyen | How would you distinguish between an undivided intersection that allows U-turns and one on the same undivided street that prohibits U-turns? Sure, most routers wouldn’t suggest making a U-turn here anyways, but most likely the authorities posted the sign here because a parent would otherwise b... | |
| 3 | 2022-09-27 15:20 | vrynkevich_lyft ♦20 | Hi, GITNE and Minh Nguyen. My name is Veranika, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Many thanks for paying attention to this and for your opinions!We understand GITNE’s arguments. That such application is least useful compared to other restriction relations. And of course the p... | |
| 126149631 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-09-13 19:43 | 1 | 2022-09-13 19:44 | Minh Nguyen | I meant to say: name:was is for the name in the Washo language; use old_name for the former name |
| 110861647 by rdanouski_lyft @ 2021-09-07 13:34 | 1 | 2022-09-07 01:17 | Minh Nguyen | access=private private=employees is a more accurate way to express the restriction than access=no, which means that no one (other than perhaps emergency personnel) can access the facility. If a routing engine is sending users onto the tarmac, the routing engine should be given a more specific waypoi... |
| 2 | 2022-09-08 11:57 | rdanouski_lyft ♦11 | Hello, Minh Nguyen.\tMy name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. The OSMwiki does not clearly distinguish between the application of "access=no" and "access=private" tags (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wik... | |
| 28498917 by nmixter @ 2015-01-30 06:03 | 1 | 2022-08-31 05:15 | Minh Nguyen | Morgan Hill boundary restored in changeset 125384083. |
| 120922336 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-05-13 08:24 | 1 | 2022-08-21 16:13 | clay_c ♦489 | Did you mean to add the Wikipedia and Wikidata tags for Elora, Tennessee to these route relations? |
| 2 | 2022-08-22 05:38 | Minh Nguyen | Huh, I must’ve misclicked or something. Fixed in changeset 125208043. | |
| 121300479 by fintler @ 2022-05-21 23:02 | 1 | 2022-08-17 22:07 | Minh Nguyen | You can either tag it as highway=proposed proposed=cycleway (only works for highway=*) or with a lifecycle prefix like proposed:highway=cycleway (works for any kind of feature).Note that proposed features don’t necessarily render in mainstream map styles, mainly because these tags have his... |
| 116322182 by HistoriCap @ 2022-01-19 03:10 | 1 | 2022-08-17 21:52 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, OpenStreetMap isn’t generally the place to record historic details that are no longer present in some manner. As you’ve noted, these houses are now private property (and one of them apparently takes pains to inform visitors of that). It would be inappropriate to draw attention to the... |
| 124473125 by smikhnouski_lyft @ 2022-08-04 10:18 | 1 | 2022-08-13 08:00 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, access=permit is for situations where the general public is allowed but needs to stop at an office to purchase a pass, typically at a state or national park. When you see a sign that says “Authorized Vehicles Only”, that usually means access=no emergency=designated. This looks like i... |
| 2 | 2022-08-15 13:28 | smikhnouski_lyft ♦23 | Hi, Minh Nguyen!My name is Stepan and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. I'm sorry for adding the wrong value for the access tag. Of course the access=no, emergency=designated are more appropriate tags for such cases. Thank you so much for paying attention to this and correcting the mista... | |
| 123177785 by Alex_the_Hum @ 2022-07-04 08:04 | 1 | 2022-07-05 17:48 | impiaaa ♦420 | Please, as I've already mentioned, the "name" tag should only contain the actual name of a feature. None of these trees are actually named "Pine," for instance. Additionally, things that have been removed in real life should be removed from the map, not titled "removed.... |
| 2 | 2022-07-09 05:47 | Alex_the_Hum ♦2 | ok, I'll fix it. but the trees are physically tagged with numbers, which should count as names. | |
| 3 | 2022-07-09 17:34 | impiaaa ♦420 | It's only a name if it's regularly referred to that way by itself. Identifiers such as numbers or letters should go in the "ref" tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref | |
| 4 | 2022-08-12 20:04 | Minh Nguyen | This is an amazing level of detail; thanks for taking the time to catalog all these species and tree numbers. The name tag is intended for the actual name of an individual tree, typically for a famous tree or one that’s dedicated in someone’s memory (which you’re more than welcome ... | |
| 5 | 2022-08-13 00:08 | impiaaa ♦420 | I've fixed the tagging in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124837285 , but I've left the common species name in species:en and have not added species= or species:wikidata. | |
| 123775075 by VLD159 @ 2022-07-18 18:21 | 1 | 2022-08-10 00:49 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, these are actually geoglyphs that appear to be advertising a nearby POI. See the discussion in changeset 123447364.I used the CD:NGI imagery layer, which is the “best” layer for this region. It was taken in 2012, but it’s the only available imagery taken off-season, when th... |
| 104846286 by BMACS001 @ 2021-05-17 19:44 | 1 | 2021-08-03 07:30 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 109071854 restores the full U.S. 31 relation. |
| 2 | 2022-07-27 19:02 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 124154479 restores the full U.S. 50 relation. | |
| 3 | 2022-07-28 11:37 | Minh Nguyen | For future reference, here’s a recap of all the relations that I’ve fixed that were incompletely reverted by this changeset:U.S. 2 in changeset 124171132U.S. 6 in changeset 124155648U.S. 9 in changeset 124171210U.S. 10 in changeset 124177930U.S. 25 in changeset 124176718U.S... | |
| 47241359 by Roadsguy @ 2017-03-28 20:18 | 1 | 2022-07-27 20:04 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I reverted this change as part of changeset 124155648 for consistency with other relations that nest each direction under the state’s route superrelation. Hope that isn’t a problem! |
| 105988407 by TurnpikeTroubadour @ 2021-06-07 18:06 | 1 | 2022-07-27 18:03 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I noticed you’ve retagged many of the streets in downtown Knoxville as highway=living_street. Living streets are a largely European concept that rarely if ever occurs in the U.S. – very low-speed streets that tolerate cars but are primarily intended for pedestrians, who have the righ... |
| 123447364 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-07-10 21:06 | 1 | 2022-07-13 16:12 | Vladislav Konoplev ♦8 | Hello. May I know where you got this data from? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123447364 |
| 2 | 2022-07-13 19:20 | Minh Nguyen | I traced these geoglyphs from South Africa CD:NGI Aerial imagery, which is the default imagery layer in this area. (I think it’s supposed to be an advertisement for a roadhouse.) | |
| 3 | 2022-07-15 07:35 | Vladislav Konoplev ♦8 | Thanks for your reply. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123447364 | |
| 123516291 by zmohammt @ 2022-07-12 11:21 | 1 | 2022-07-12 23:32 | Minh Nguyen | This change has been reverted for a second time in changeset 123539571. Your company’s data is outdated and contradicts newer information that I have gathered from repeated field surveys.For proof, please see the following:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Union_Pacific_Warm_Spri... |
| 2 | 2022-07-13 10:03 | zmohammt ♦1 | Hi,Thank you for reviewing my changeset and correcting the edit.Apologies, for marking the road as bi-directional. I really appreciate the ground-level information provided. It’s an honest mistake from my end. Going forward, I'll be extra cautious while adding the road directions ... | |
| 123055526 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-06-30 17:47 | 1 | 2022-06-30 17:48 | Minh Nguyen | …added bridges, culverts; realigned roads, streams |
| 2 | 2022-07-07 00:11 | stevea ♦304 | Minh, please undo the railway=disused tagging from here. Just months ago, there was a demonstration train here (from Capitola to Santa Cruz, I believe, though Watsonville must have been "connected").See https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/11/04/rtc-moves-past-tig-m-roaring-camp-req... | |
| 3 | 2022-07-07 00:25 | stevea ♦304 | Additionally, SCBTRR has trackage rights on the (publicly-owned) Santa Cruz Branch (to Watsonville Junction / UP), otherwise it would be isolated from the rest of the national rail.These are "lightly used" rail, not disused. | |
| 4 | 2022-07-07 00:55 | stevea ♦304 | Saint Paul Pacific (subsidiary of Progressive Rail, Minnesota) has an operator's license (contract to operate freight rail) on this entire branch until 2029, I believe. These are legally active rail.See https://www.progressiverail.com/rrspp/spp.html and https://www.up.com/customers/shortli... | |
| 5 | 2022-07-07 18:42 | Minh Nguyen | I’m happy to retag the specific portions that have had this occasional service. I thought I was merely acting on the note that was added in changeset 67040694.It wasn’t clear to me from my research that this occasional service extends all the way from Santa Cruz to Capitola. In fact,... | |
| 6 | 2022-07-07 19:07 | stevea ♦304 | While the traffic that happens on Santa Cruz Branch IS "occasional service," it isn't (necessarily) always for freight. Though, SCBTRR ("Big Trees," who run the tourist train between Roaring Camp and the Boardwalk "Tram Hump" halt) DO need the branch from the Dave... | |
| 7 | 2022-07-07 19:22 | stevea ♦304 | Regarding maxspeed, I think that somebody mistakenly "guessed" the tracks were already Class 2 (25 MPH) and set them to be "40" (meaning km/hr, essentially the same thing). But people misunderstood the 40 as km/hr and thought it meant 25 MPH. It still isn't clear to me whe... | |
| 8 | 2022-07-07 19:39 | stevea ♦304 | Mmmm, because of demonstration trains sometimes going as far as Swift Halt / Natural Bridges, I've made the disused portion from at the wye, but from Moore Creek (approx. Shaffer Road) westerly out to Davenport. | |
| 9 | 2022-07-07 20:19 | stevea ♦304 | Oops: minor corrections to the above:"thought it meant 40 MPH"and"I've made the disused portion NOT from at the wye, but from Moore Creek" | |
| 10 | 2022-07-08 06:23 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for taking care of the retagging so quickly. The idea that a one-off trip could prove decisive against years of inactivity boggles my mind. There’s a parallel discussion in Slack about when to call a road under construction versus no-access with a very different conclusion. But with rai... | |
| 11 | 2022-07-08 06:37 | stevea ♦304 | Delighted to "retag quickly." (a.k.a. "heavy lifting is simply lifting").I really didn't know about the fallen tree, but I agree with you that "it must be open." I saw (in some imagery) what looked like one, but I saw no such tree (and "miles of parked t... | |
| 12 | 2022-07-08 08:14 | Minh Nguyen | The Bing and Esri imagery showing the fallen tree is from late 2020, according to the metadata for those images. None of the other layers offer such metadata but are most likely older. | |
| 115326073 by PierceH @ 2021-12-24 08:53 | 1 | 2022-07-03 03:43 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, are you sure this Costco has solar panels on its roof? All I see in aerial imagery is the skylights.Separately, please try to provide more descriptive changeset comments when possible. It doesn’t have to be incredibly thorough, but for example here it would’ve been helpful to men... |
| 120992497 by Polyglot @ 2022-05-14 20:39 | 1 | 2022-06-29 19:53 | Minh Nguyen | Neat, mini runways! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1060140555 |
| 122942229 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-06-28 07:41 | 1 | 2022-06-28 07:42 | Minh Nguyen | The crossing had already been mapped; this changeset indicates that the crossing is uncontrolled. |
| 122531746 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-06-18 05:38 | 1 | 2022-06-23 19:27 | OpenBrian ♦20 | I see you :) |
| 2 | 2022-06-23 19:30 | Minh Nguyen | More context in https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/openstreetmap-americana/issues/428#issuecomment-1159349224 | |
| 122408186 by rsahooki @ 2022-06-15 09:29 | 1 | 2022-06-20 22:10 | Minh Nguyen | Only the end of this street is a one-way street, as demonstrated by the stop sign and other signs facing in the other direction. Reverted in changeset 122640545. |
| 69362839 by ButanoCERT @ 2019-04-19 00:37 | 1 | 2022-06-13 23:42 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, should the speed limit on this bridge be 10 mph, as opposed to 10 km/h as it’s currently tagged? |
| 106749106 by \Mike @ 2021-06-22 05:17 | 1 | 2022-06-13 17:33 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for adding these speed limits. Remember to add a space and “mph” to the end of the maxspeed tag value so that routers interpret it as miles per hour instead of kilometers per hour. Thanks! |
| 122313748 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-06-13 08:48 | 1 | 2022-06-13 08:48 | Minh Nguyen | Also adjusted the position of various POIs. |
| 78419100 by Trevor_1 @ 2019-12-14 22:46 | 1 | 2022-06-12 23:14 | Minh Nguyen | Undone in changeset 122300376. |
| 103818501 by Minh Nguyen @ 2021-04-29 06:31 | 1 | 2021-05-13 16:32 | impiaaa ♦420 | This change includes a number of duplicate addresses (including unit number, and without feature tags). Is there a way to clean that up or should they be left? |
| 2 | 2021-05-13 21:50 | Minh Nguyen | This was based on the SCCProperty2 layer tagged on this changeset. Normally when I encounter a building with individual units in that layer, I add points for each of the units and then tag some of them with the information from the SDP dataset. That way we aren’t left with a false sense of hav... | |
| 3 | 2022-06-09 01:07 | impiaaa ♦420 | In changeset 122140017 I imported the addresses here from City of San Jose data, merging and replacing the old points. | |
| 4 | 2022-06-09 03:22 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks! | |
| 121595808 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-05-27 22:48 | 1 | 2022-06-04 08:19 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,I don't think we need to use -fonipa in name tags - name:pronunciation is already defined to be the IPA transcription of a name and can be combined with multi-lingual names like name:en:pronunciation. |
| 2 | 2022-06-04 19:59 | Minh Nguyen | I mostly agree and have been pretty active in promoting that tagging scheme. However, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to humor the mapper(s) who suggested the more standards-compliant en-fonipa code on the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:pronunciation#Possible_synonyms If history... | |
| 112667208 by Necessarycoot72 @ 2021-10-18 19:29 | 1 | 2022-05-31 00:12 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, this sledding hill is 20 meters tall over the average ground elevation. By changing height=* to ele=*, this changeset implies that Chill Hill is only 20 meters above sea level, which would make it a pit more than 250 meters deep. You may want to review other peaks that you retagged in case they ... |
| 2 | 2022-05-31 00:21 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 121741937. | |
| 93689318 by clay_c @ 2020-11-07 00:02 | 1 | 2021-07-17 22:52 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset somehow replaced the route relations for northbound and southbound U.S. Route 101 between Los Angeles and Hopland (71162 and 108619) with the members of a bus route relation, presumably for Golden Gate Transit. The relations were then deleted as tagging mistakes in changeset 98079317.... |
| 2 | 2021-07-17 22:57 | clay_c ♦489 | My bad! Thanks for taking the time to fix it. | |
| 3 | 2021-07-18 01:06 | Minh Nguyen | Any idea which Golden Gate Transit bus route got conflated with U.S. 101? I’m afraid I’m not familiar enough with that system to know what the stops should correspond to. | |
| 4 | 2021-07-18 01:13 | clay_c ♦489 | I'm out in the mountains with limited internet access at the moment, so I'll check when I get home tomorrow. My first guess would be GGT route 101. | |
| 5 | 2021-07-29 20:46 | gpserror ♦221 | Spotted this issue http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4780282 while inspecting errors from another tool, marking as a dependency. No U-turn restricion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/55962287 was lost | |
| 6 | 2021-07-30 15:11 | clay_c ♦489 | Did a partial revert here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108898114 Please double-check and let me know if there are still issues. | |
| 7 | 2021-07-30 21:18 | gpserror ♦221 | Thanks, I fixed up the rest of relation 4780282 so good to go on my front! | |
| 8 | 2022-05-23 07:36 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset did the same thing to the route relation for California State Route 1, which ended up getting deleted as a tagging error in changeset 98079414. Changeset 121350189 restored the relation and 121351794 reverted it to being a road route again. | |
| 98079414 by dchiles @ 2021-01-25 00:21 | 1 | 2022-05-23 07:35 | Minh Nguyen | This relation were somehow broken in changeset 93689318, but the correct fix would’ve been to revert that changeset rather than delete the relations, which represented California State Route 1. The relation has been restored in changeset 121350189 and was unrepurposed in changeset 121351794. |
| 119930201 by rakdpall @ 2022-04-20 02:29 | 1 | 2022-05-16 01:45 | Minh Nguyen | I reverted this change in changeset 121029361 because I saw the one-way restriction with my very eyes and mapped it the same day. It’s very recent, but you can read about it at https://bit.ly/quiet-zone-project |
| 2 | 2023-02-10 09:40 | rakdpall ♦3 | Hello Minh Nguyen,Thank you for reviewing our changeset and correcting the edit.Thanks once again for fixing the issue, looking forward to learn more from you.Regards,rakdpall | |
| 120900807 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-05-12 18:04 | 1 | 2022-05-13 02:00 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | Looking on wiki and taginfo, it seems like the value is "legislative"? "legislator" has never been used before. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120900807 |
| 2 | 2022-05-13 03:29 | Minh Nguyen | government=legislative is apparently for the main legislative meeting hall. (Don’t ask me how the State Capitol counts as a single office.)https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/government=legislator was used three times until today, based on the discussion at https://osmus.slack.com/archi... | |
| 115022116 by daniel_solow @ 2021-12-16 19:25 | 1 | 2022-05-12 19:00 | Minh Nguyen | Based on https://council.nyc.gov/district-30/ , I think node 9344579187 might’ve moved to a different neighborhood just after you mapped it. I’ve tagged it office=vacant for now, but perhaps you could double-check the new location? |
| 2 | 2022-05-12 20:17 | daniel_solow ♦80 | I will stop by and check for you, no problem! | |
| 111267584 by MapSpot @ 2021-09-16 02:47 | 1 | 2022-05-12 18:25 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I retagged node 6778205752 as office=political_campaign to distinguish the campaign headquarters from a party field office. Since Bhalla ran unopposed in 2021, do you know if the campaign headquarters is still open? |
| 2 | 2022-05-12 18:49 | MapSpot ♦96 | I'll confirm when I go to Hoboken next week. It's likely a vacant storefront currently. | |
| 120195486 by Mingwei @ 2022-04-26 06:37 | 1 | 2022-04-30 01:00 | Minh Nguyen | Hi Mingwei, thanks for taking an interest in these bridges. I don’t quite agree with moving these names to official_name, since they are posted on the bridge, often visibly, if not in a manner that’s particularly usable at freeway speeds. I see you’re on OSMUS Slack, so I started a... |
| 118112865 by Resplendent @ 2022-03-05 02:42 | 1 | 2022-04-29 15:50 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for updating the airport concessions! By the way, it probably would’ve been a good idea to keep the closed POIs around but with just the address (stall number). For example, node 4853689423 could’ve kept its addr:unit tag, which presumably won’t change even if something has ... |
| 2 | 2022-04-29 23:13 | Resplendent ♦2 | Appreciate the suggestion!! | |
| 120065242 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-04-22 18:27 | 1 | 2022-04-22 18:29 | Minh Nguyen | See discussion at https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/openstreetmap-americana/issues/289 |
| 118759897 by UrbanUnPlanner @ 2022-03-22 03:53 | 1 | 2022-03-30 06:28 | Minh Nguyen | It looks like iD uploaded this empty changeset as you were experiencing something similar to https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7199 .I took the .osc file you recovered from iD and reuploaded it as changeset 119098882 using JOSM. Please review my changes. The .osc file appeared to be par... |
| 2 | 2022-03-30 06:31 | Minh Nguyen | Specifically, ways 1046405516 and 1046405515 were missing from the .osc file. Way 1033401133 was also missing, so the nodes you added to the south of the railroad crossing would’ve gotten orphaned. | |
| 3 | 2022-03-30 06:34 | Minh Nguyen | I also had to fix a lot of other orphaned nodes where you had clearly wanted to add a node somewhere along a way, but the .osc file omitted the way. | |
| 118889384 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-03-25 02:44 | 1 | 2022-03-25 02:45 | Minh Nguyen | Sorry for the big bbox; didn’t realize these two changesets were so far apart. |
| 59014271 by hoream_telenav @ 2018-05-16 11:26 | 1 | 2022-03-22 20:49 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 118794072. |
| 112361150 by Edward @ 2021-10-11 07:41 | 1 | 2021-10-11 14:11 | salvoconducto Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2021-10-11 14:26 | Edward ♦26 | Are you suggesting a relation with type=street, wikidata=Q4631434 and name=22nd Street? | |
| 3 | 2022-03-21 22:37 | Minh Nguyen | In the absence of an approved relation type representing a street, it’s pretty common to tag individual roadways with identical QIDs in wikidata, name:etymology:wikidata, etc., just as with names. Maybe it isn’t ideal for some purposes, but the onus would be on someone who likes a partic... | |
| 113464706 by Mr_Cee @ 2021-11-07 00:04 | 1 | 2022-03-19 05:44 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for noting the change in access for this road. Is the road still closed? For future reference, the proper way to close off a road is to set “access” to “no”. Don’t change the road to a fence, as this changeset did. Thanks for your attention. |
| 117700884 by mapsru @ 2022-02-21 21:02 | 1 | 2022-03-10 08:29 | Minh Nguyen | This change optimizes for routers at the expense of other kinds of data consumers. Changeset 118310149 introduces name:left/right and restores name but keeps name:forward/backward for routers. |
| 117938144 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-02-28 10:25 | 1 | 2022-03-08 16:28 | Joel Amos ♦30 | There is no longer a congregation here. See version #3 of the church building |
| 2 | 2022-03-08 23:21 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, sorry about that. I’ve been going through GNIS records and missed that this one had been moved. Tagging it with `disused:amenity=place_of_worship` or `old_name` would keep someone from making a similar mistake in the future based on these records.I attempted to fix the mistake in chang... | |
| 3 | 2022-03-09 18:21 | Joel Amos ♦30 | Changes look good, and nice addition of detail. I updated the church address just now. It would seem we have similar masochistic tendencies per GNIS clean-up haha.Nice catch with the church hall; it looks like I worked on the church and hall 6 months apart and didn't notice the connection. | |
| 115995554 by xephos1one @ 2022-01-10 19:34 | 1 | 2022-02-19 23:57 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for your attention to this area. Please use a high-resolution imagery layer when realigning roads and other features. Most parts of Ohio have OSIP (Ohio Statewide Imagery Program) imagery that’s both high-resolution and well-aligned, albeit sometimes a little older than the global l... |
| 2 | 2022-02-21 17:53 | xephos1one ♦30 | Sadly OSIP doesn't load for me as Eiim may have told you already.Is my alignment badly off? | |
| 3 | 2022-02-22 01:13 | Minh Nguyen | No, you’re fine, I just figured you might find it more convenient to work with 6-inch imagery than the blurrier global layers when realigning things. However, I forgot that OGRIP blocks overseas connections for some reason. Sorry for the confusion. | |
| 111831566 by Tim@SanManuel @ 2021-09-28 18:01 | 1 | 2022-02-19 02:37 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, can you elaborate on the reason that this changeset deleted the boundary of the San Manuel Reservation? This changeset also removed part of the San Bernardino city limits. Did you intend for your road edits to have this effect? |
| 116480319 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-01-22 21:03 | 1 | 2022-02-13 10:38 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | Hi, Is your use of man_made=traffic_signals based on this:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signalsMarc. |
| 2 | 2022-02-13 10:43 | Minh Nguyen | Not quite. highway=traffic_signals is for the point along a roadway that is controlled by traffic signals, whereas I was attempting to also mark the location of the physical signals. I avoided highway=traffic_signals for this purpose because of the likelihood that it would generate validator errors ... | |
| 3 | 2022-02-13 13:30 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | I found similar use of that here:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1045079682 (and a few more in that area)Worldwide 44 (mostly yours).Wondering how useful it is, though.Who (or what) would benefit from such data? | |
| 4 | 2022-02-14 09:48 | Minh Nguyen | It wasn’t a particularly serious endeavor. The locations of the highway=traffic_signals nodes didn’t quite describe the complex layout of this bridge and intersection, so I had a bit of fun micromapping it all. As far as I can tell, the more practical aspects of this bridge are already i... | |
| 116088255 by btwhite92 @ 2022-01-13 02:17 | 1 | 2022-01-24 20:48 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Hi. Can you provide a link to the proposal that you cited for why you made these edits? I'm the main editor north of Sacramento, wasn't aware of it, and would like to read about it since I disagree with how you re-tagged a lot of the roads in the area. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2022-01-24 20:51 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Also, you really should have consulted with people from the local mapping community before you started doing mass edits like this. Un-disccussed mass re-tagging of this type are discouraged even if there is an approved proposal. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-24 21:15 | btwhite92 ♦99 | Hi Adamant1,The proposal to move main interregional long-haul routes to 'trunk' is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Highway_classification. Specific guideance proposed for CA here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Draft_Highway_Classification_Guidelin... | |
| 4 | 2022-01-24 23:21 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Thanks for providing the links. I do wonder why your already doing mass edits based on draft articles that haven't been approved. At least not from what I can tell from reading over them. While I respect and agree with you that the mailing list isn't a great communication platform, it'... | |
| 5 | 2022-01-25 02:50 | btwhite92 ♦99 | These are "drafts" in the sense that they are incomplete and that many routes and areas are still under discussion, not in the sense that every road or area needs to undergo a formal voting process. The linked documentation is the summarization of months of discussion and debate involving ... | |
| 6 | 2022-01-25 04:01 | Minh Nguyen | The overall national reclassification project is documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance . It’s no longer in “draft” status, having been discussed extensively in multiple places including the talk-us mailing list. An impo... | |
| 7 | 2022-01-25 04:10 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | This edit is broadly consistent with the principle of tagging the principal, long-haul routes between cities of regional importance as trunk, regardless of physical quality of the road. As the principal, long-haul route between Eureka and Redding, CA-299 clearly qualifies as a trunk road and is con... | |
| 8 | 2022-01-25 05:50 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <It’s no longer in “draft” status, having been discussed extensively in multiple places including the talk-us mailing list.Originally you said there was no discussion on the mailing list about it because the mailing list is clunky or whatever. So which one is it? was it disc... | |
| 9 | 2022-01-25 05:57 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <s the principal, long-haul route between Eureka and Redding, CA-299 clearly qualifies as a trunk road and is consistent with the consensus that has emerged in the US for classifying highways after months of national discussions on this topic.As I said in my other message, I don't care i... | |
| 10 | 2022-01-25 06:03 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Like how is Market Street somehow magically a trunk road but South Market Street isn't one when there's literally no difference between them? If anything going by how the draft defines a trunk road South Market Street is more of one then Market Street. Neither should be tagged as a trunk r... | |
| 11 | 2022-01-25 06:54 | stevea ♦304 | Hi Bradley and others: From his california/Draft HCG (linked by the US 2021 HCG) wiki, I understand Bradley to mean groupings of California as he describes them there (admittedly "arbitrarily," to use his word). Though I and my mapping do seem to fall "largely" into Bradley... | |
| 12 | 2022-01-25 06:58 | Minh Nguyen | Here are some threads where the new national guidelines were discussed at length:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-May/thread.html#21018https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-May/thread.html#21099What hasn’t been discussed on talk-us so far is the... | |
| 13 | 2022-01-25 07:04 | stevea ♦304 | Certainly, discussion is and will take place in Slack. I choose not to participate via that medium and am appreciative to learn of "California edition" momentum trickling to / being "cross-posted" (from Slack? OK) to talk-us. Maybe a talk-california mail-list could be born, bu... | |
| 14 | 2022-01-25 07:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <However, I do defer to Adamant1's apparently deep familiarity with Shasta County, Redding and environs and leave mapping those areas to him and othersThank you SteveA. I appreciate that. <That said, it’s quite reasonable to quibble over N. Market St. in Redding. This is an ... | |
| 15 | 2022-01-25 07:15 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <This is difficult and good work, and exactly as Minh says, there remain some rough edges. That's to be expected and doesn't seem terribly contentious (nor does it need to be). Rome wasn't built in a day.Maybe Rome wasn't built in a day, but the re-tagging occurred in one ... | |
| 16 | 2022-01-25 07:18 | stevea ♦304 | That's a fair observation!Consensus can be difficult to achieve, but it isn't impossible. Again, I am cheered by seeing as much progress as I do. | |
| 17 | 2022-01-25 16:40 | btwhite92 ♦99 | W.R.T. to Market St/etc north of Eureka, I bumped these up to trunk based on signage EB at Eureka and Market indicating destination NB I-5 traffic to take Market north. I'm happy to defer to your local knowledge here and will bump these back down as soon as I can (currently only at my computer ... | |
| 18 | 2022-01-25 18:19 | willkmis ♦173 | It sounds like things are already getting ironed out in a constructive way, but as one of the other authors of the California guidance I just wanted to reach out. Thank you for providing feedback Adamant and stevea, I definitely understand being wary of major edits in areas you've worked hard t... | |
| 19 | 2022-01-25 19:29 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <I'm happy to defer to your local knowledge here and will bump these back down as soon as I can (currently only at my computer a couple hours a week). Thanks. That's fine. It doesn't need to be done tis instant or anything.<If we're in agreement that CA 299<->... | |
| 20 | 2022-01-25 19:48 | Minh Nguyen | Has the section of 299 within the city limits been relinquished to the city? Lately the state has relinquished a number of state highways within city limits, but I can’t find any mention of that happening to 299 in the legislative record. Have they removed the 299 shields along Eureka Way or s... | |
| 21 | 2022-01-25 23:57 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <Has the section of 299 within the city limits been relinquished to the city?Not that I'm aware off, but I don't think ownership should be a good metric to decide tagging. Like Cascade Boulevard between Redding and Shasta Lake is owned by the state because it's part of the old ... | |
| 22 | 2022-01-26 00:17 | Minh Nguyen | I only inquired about the status of 299 as an aside, because I thought you were claiming that 299 ends more or less at the city limits, which would’ve required correcting the ref tag and route relation. In California, state routes only consist of state highways (which are owned by the state). ... | |
| 23 | 2022-01-26 06:28 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <Unless Eureka Way and Market Street have been relinquished to Redding or Shasta County, 299 still goes through Redding uninterrupted, even if no one prefers to refer to it as 299.I mean I guess you could say highway 99 still goes through Shasta Lake because it's still owned by Caltrans,... | |
| 24 | 2022-01-26 07:30 | Minh Nguyen | This is good feedback. In the passage that you quoted from the guidelines, the operative word is “usually”. It’s referring to the character of the overall road from end to end as a means to keep every long-distance highway from being upgraded to trunk, but it isn’t intended t... | |
| 25 | 2022-01-26 08:06 | stevea ♦304 | <though it’s frustrating that “road” and “highway” are such overloaded terms.>I agree that this is a crux of difficulty here. Keep up the excellent dialog, everyone, this is good stuff! | |
| 26 | 2022-01-28 22:18 | btwhite92 ♦99 | I dropped the surface roads east of Buenaventura back down to 'primary'. I would like to try to reach a resolution however on what the "main" way is connecting the interstate/freeway system to CA 299 west of Buenaventura, since the goal of this tagging project is to develop a coh... | |
| 27 | 2022-01-28 23:24 | Adamant1 ♦222 | It really depends. Most of the time if your north or south of town and want to go to 299 you take I-5 to Shasta Street/Pine/Eureka Way. That's really the main way to get downtown. Like I've gone from Shasta Lake or south of town to Whiskey town thousands of times and rarely if ever do I or... | |
| 28 | 2022-01-28 23:57 | Adamant1 ♦222 | BTW, as a side to that, most of time traffic on 299 is people commuting into town for work from Weaverville/Hayfork for the west or Palo cedro/Shingletown/Burney on the other side. Only a slightly small amount of 299s traffic is people traveling through Redding to go to Eureka. Even people from Redd... | |
| 29 | 2022-01-29 02:36 | Minh Nguyen | There isn’t much riding on the classification of these downtown streets other than a typical rendered map being able to communicate that 299 connects to 44. At some zoom levels, a renderer other than osm-carto could quite reasonably include trunk roads but omit primary roads. That’s a st... | |
| 30 | 2022-01-29 02:41 | btwhite92 ♦99 | (Lots of "quoting" words here - I don't mean to imply anything when I do this aside from that these words are a bit fuzzy and could be replaced with a handful of other similar terms and therefore shouldn't be read strictly)I feel like this analysis of traffic patterns through... | |
| 31 | 2022-01-30 02:35 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <There isn’t much riding on the classification of these downtown streetsJust like there isn't/wasn't much riding on how a grassy area in Santa Cruz was/is tagged. Yet the debate, disagreement, and me re-tagging said areas from parks to meadows led to me and SteveA both being b... | |
| 32 | 2022-01-30 02:48 | Minh Nguyen | A local community of one does not own any part of the map; that’s not how OpenStreetMap works. You may also recall that I’ve previously defended your right to make edits in another part of the country that one local mapper disagreed with, in a changeset discussion that got heated very qu... | |
| 33 | 2022-01-30 02:59 | stevea ♦304 | Quite a number of false allegations here by Adamant1 (again), is what I'll say about that. Though, maybe if I skate into "being generous territory" I give him the benefit of the doubt and say he has a misunderstanding or is offers us confusing language. I honestly don't underst... | |
| 34 | 2022-01-30 03:01 | btwhite92 ♦99 | It doesn't seem like this is going to be a productive discussion at this point. Leaving the tagging as is since it was the closest thing to an agreement that could be reached so far. While again I am sorry I didn't reach out to you first before making these changes, and I do respect and ap... | |
| 35 | 2022-01-30 03:05 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | OSM is a collaborative project. In no uncertain terms I say, nobody "owns" an area. We're all in this together. | |
| 36 | 2022-01-30 03:06 | stevea ♦304 | To be clear, I do not claim to be authoritative in OSM. I merely do my best, perhaps "being a good example" as a high goal I do strive to achieve. I do so because I see other mappers strive to do their best, not be authoritative and "set a good example by being a good example."... | |
| 37 | 2022-01-30 03:09 | btwhite92 ♦99 | To be clear here, I didn't mean to say that I think SteveA is acting authoritatively necessarily. I've never edited in Santa Cruz nor do I know anything about the Adamant1/SteveA drama arc. Just that, if A1 felt like they weren't treated fairly, that they would use that as motivation ... | |
| 38 | 2022-01-30 04:03 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <A local community of one does not own any part of the map; that’s not how OpenStreetMap works.I never said it did. Although when it was purely SteveA's opinions about how to map things in Santa Cruz I was more then willing to refer to it. Obviously me saying "Sorry SteveA, bu... | |
| 39 | 2022-01-30 04:17 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <OSM is a collaborative project. In no uncertain terms I say, nobody "owns" an area. We're all in this together.BTW, ridiculous comments are exactly why I'm taking the stance on this whole thing that I am. On the one hand it's a community based project, we're all... | |
| 40 | 2022-01-30 04:23 | btwhite92 ♦99 | >I've literally said 299/44 could be kept as trunk roads, and made multiple recommendations where the best place to not tag 299 as a trunk anymore would be.Okay, this is all that's being proposed. CA 44 through downtown as 'trunk', and CA 299 west of Market as 'trunk&... | |
| 41 | 2022-01-30 05:02 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <Okay, this is all that's being proposed. CA 44 through downtown as 'trunk', and CA 299 west of Market as 'trunk' as well. If this is acceptable to you, then the classification debate is resolved, and there are no other proposed changes in this area.I'm fine with... | |
| 42 | 2022-01-30 15:06 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | Right now there's a glaring gap in the trunk network where CA 299 abruptly changes classification at Buenaventura Blvd. That's not an acceptable situation and is at odds with the wide community acceptance of tagging highway classifications based on the connectivity importance of roads. C... | |
| 43 | 2022-01-31 00:51 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Uuuhhh, to bad? btwhite92 seems fine with it and they we're the one that made the edits in the first place. I'm also fine with it. I'm not super interested in your opinion at this point either since your only participation up until now has been to accuse me of ownership. So maybe take... | |
| 44 | 2022-01-31 02:57 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | With all due respect Adamant1, you don't get to dictate how the map is made just because you live nearby, and Bradley undid his changes because you bullied him into it. The way we classify highways in the US has evolved based on extensive discussions and is a collaboration of many, many, mappe... | |
| 45 | 2022-01-31 03:27 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I don't think there's anything respectful about saying we are all in this together as a community Etc. Etc. and then to accuse people of ownership or dictating things just because don't agree with you about something. Local mappers (includin me) are as much a part of the community as ... | |
| 46 | 2022-01-31 03:34 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | > In the meantime I can't even get a clear answer in this discussion about what roads should be tagged as trunk roads or whyIt's spelled out in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_GuidanceTrunk roads are "the most important non-mot... | |
| 47 | 2022-01-31 04:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <Trunk roads are "the most important non-motorway roads that provide principal, long-haul connections between population centers of regional importance."Sure dude. I've never disagreed 299 or 44 are the best connections "between" cities of regional importance. Market ... | |
| 48 | 2022-01-31 04:26 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | Great, I'm glad you agree that Redding and Eureka are regionally important cities. Specific clarification about importance and connectivity are described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance -- no Philosophy degree needed.The only questi... | |
| 49 | 2022-01-31 08:38 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <Great, I'm glad you agree that Redding and Eureka are regionally important cities. Specific clarification about importance and connectivity are described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance -- no Philosophy degree needed.I read throu... | |
| 50 | 2022-01-31 08:48 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Really at this point I could probably make a good argument for why 299 shouldn't be tagged as a trunk road. I'm not going to because it's not something I super care about, but I could. | |
| 51 | 2022-02-01 09:29 | Adamant1 ♦222 | BTW, I was reading over the talk page for the proposal early and I think Imagico's comment is particular relevant here. It's also exactly what I've said repeatedly was my problem with the proposal and how the roads are being tagged. I think everyone would benefit from reading it. ... | |
| 52 | 2022-02-01 10:29 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | Thanks for the feedback. The importance-based classification system that has emerged as a national consensus is supported by dozens of mappers that have collaborated on writing this documentation. I'm sorry that you find this insufficient, but I'm not seeing any willingness on your part ... | |
| 53 | 2022-02-01 11:56 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I constructively participated in this discussion. Which is why 299 and 44 are still tagged as trunk roads. So I have zero clue what your talking about. I'd really love to know what you've constructively contributed though. Literally all you did in this discussion is accuse me map ownership... | |
| 54 | 2022-02-01 12:00 | Adamant1 ♦222 | There's zero reason you can't just listen to the feedback, improve the issues with the proposal, and then we can discuss it again at that point. | |
| 55 | 2022-02-01 12:07 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Or as another option I could report btwhite92 to the DWG for making an un-discussed mass edit based on a half baked proposal and then having you and other people badger me to get your way about it. According to btwhite92 he didn't declare it on the mailing list beforehand and I don't see ... | |
| 56 | 2022-02-01 12:11 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Although I put the fact that it wasn't the right approach on you more then I do btwhite92. He was actually pretty reasonable about it, you, not so much. | |
| 57 | 2022-02-01 12:22 | Adamant1 ♦222 | In the meantime it's hilarious that you say there's a national consensus about this based on the opinion of dozens of users when there's literally only 4 people who have commented on the proposals talk page, one of them who disagreed about it, and there isn't that many more who h... | |
| 58 | 2022-02-01 13:04 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Adamant, Elliott from the DWG here. The only one we see in the wrong here is you, for asserting authority over an area where you have none and for using this changeset discussion as a platform. Please cease and desist from further discussion, causing grief to your fellow mappers, and this line of qu... | |
| 59 | 2022-02-01 14:48 | Adamant1 ♦222 | ElliottPlack, I sent you a private message. I'd appreciate it if you responded to it. Thanks. | |
| 60 | 2022-02-01 14:57 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Also this discussion is about a specific piece of local road and an edit to it. Not the proposal in general. So this a perfectly appropriate place to have the discussion. Especially since I'm local to the area that is being discussed. That's literally what changeset comments are for. I wou... | |
| 61 | 2022-02-01 16:48 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Also while we are at it I'd like an answer as to how I have no authority over this area when I'm a local mapper, with 23,000 edits to the area and have driven along the two roads we are discussing for most of my life? I'm not going to claim I'm the ultimate authority over this ar... | |
| 62 | 2022-02-01 16:59 | Adamant1 ♦222 | A matter of fact I'm a couple blocks from Market Street right now. I could walk there in a few minutes. I was just over there a while ago. My opinion about how to map anything around there would inherently have more authority then say ZeLonewolf's opinion that he formed while sitting at hi... | |
| 63 | 2022-02-01 18:34 | willkmis ♦173 | I had refrained from commenting much on this, as I feel like the acrimony was about more than a road classification. But since the merits of the whole enterprise have now come up, I do want to describe why I think this trunk classification project is useful and an improvement of OSM data.I want ... | |
| 64 | 2022-02-01 18:48 | willkmis ♦173 | To bring in an example from another part of the state that I think has some parallels, I was initially uncomfortable with proposing CA 1 and US 101 through the city of San Francisco as trunk. I lived in San Francisco for 18 years, and had taken both these routes myself many times. Their built charac... | |
| 65 | 2022-02-01 19:16 | ezekielf ♦84 | I've also been following this thread without commenting in hopes of California mappers working things out among themselves. Since that clearly isn't happening I guess I'll pile on. I support a connected trunk network and I haven't found Adamant1's arguments for why a trunk... | |
| 66 | 2022-02-01 19:24 | Adamant1 ♦222 | < support a connected trunk network and I haven't found Adamant1's arguments for why a trunk route should stop at the edge of town convincing at all.For which road? And what exactly about what I said do you disagree with? | |
| 67 | 2022-02-01 20:35 | Adamant1 ♦222 | <I want to start by saying to Adamant that I do think local perspective is valuable and important, and I respect your knowledge of the area.Thank you. I appreciate that. <a rel="nofollow"fter reading your descriptions of local circulation patterns (and judging for myself), I ... | |
| 68 | 2022-02-02 01:39 | Minh Nguyen | A lot of the discussions so far have focused on edge cases, hence the hedging and weasel words. You aren’t alone in favoring DOT functional classification as a factor in OSM highway classification because they seem more cut and dry. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts ... | |
| 116641225 by Fluffy89502 @ 2022-01-26 22:13 | 1 | 2022-01-28 02:41 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for your attention to this highway. It makes a lot of sense to give this segment of Highway 156 the same level of prominence as the segment east of Highway 156. In case you haven’t seen it yet, several of us California mappers are collaborating on a standard for determining which hig... |
| 2 | 2022-01-28 02:43 | Minh Nguyen | (Typo: I meant it makes a lot of sense to give this segment of Highway **152** the same level of prominence as the segment east of Highway 156.) | |
| 3 | 2022-02-26 01:25 | EP_Repair ♦561 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117858450, 117866896 where the changeset comment is: reverting highway classification edits where Fluffy downgraded trunk/motorway roads without either discussing with local communities or following 2021 Highways Classification wiki. Fl... | |
| 78833486 by stevea @ 2019-12-24 23:28 | 1 | 2022-01-15 03:42 | Minh Nguyen | 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 ♦304 | 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 | 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 ♦304 | Ah, thanks for the clarification. | |
| 116169894 by Minh Nguyen @ 2022-01-15 02:42 | 1 | 2022-01-15 02:43 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset also removes a fictitious off-ramp in favor of existing turn lane tags at an at-grade intersection. |
| 115960526 by SherbetS @ 2022-01-09 22:52 | 1 | 2022-01-11 21:29 | Cleveland steamer ♦9 | Please give complete changeset comments out of courtesy to the other mappers. Even with a hashtag in front it wouldn't be sufficient. |
| 2 | 2022-01-12 13:37 | SherbetS ♦155 | Hello Cleveland streamer,The comment on this changeset was automatically assigned by the OSM US tasking manager. I think that the comment is sufficient because you can look up the project and read a detailed description.I don't manage the project so I didn't actually choose for thi... | |
| 3 | 2022-01-12 13:53 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_commentsThis is not a sufficient or good changeset comment.> you can look up the project and read a detailed description.Not really. I am a relatively experienced person as far as OSM goes and have no idea how to do this as this c... | |
| 4 | 2022-01-12 18:38 | Minh Nguyen | Here’s the tasking manager project: https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/248 | |
| 5 | 2022-01-12 19:53 | Minh Nguyen | https://github.com/hotosm/tasking-manager/issues/4959 requests that the tasking manager tag the changeset with the project URL like MapRoulette does. | |
| 114343043 by jeffeq @ 2021-11-29 03:41 | 1 | 2022-01-02 09:49 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 115632320 fixes various errors where these paths crossed roads and streams. Did Joe’s Trail get extended south? I retagged these other paths as informal paths, assuming they aren’t part of Joe’s Trail or any other official trail. (It isn’t appropriate to map an ordi... |
| 112579485 by turnrye @ 2021-10-16 13:36 | 1 | 2022-01-01 22:04 | Minh Nguyen | Good idea, thanks! |
| 95721077 by Remesse @ 2020-12-12 12:49 | 1 | 2020-12-13 17:43 | ivanbranco ♦2,697 | Why fixme:building_shape=yes and not something like fixme=Shapes to be fixed? With fixme:building_shape the fixme request will not pop up in site like Osmose for example and less people will see it. |
| 2 | 2020-12-18 09:04 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset was partially reverted in changeset 96054624.For context, most of these buildings were meticulously hand-drawn 11 years ago in an editor that lacked a right-angles operation despite aerial imagery in which the buildings were barely discernible at zoom level 17. The rest of these b... | |
| 3 | 2021-12-31 19:26 | Minh Nguyen | For the record, most of the building geometries have been replaced by professionally digitized CAGIS geometries (with addresses) in changesets 115414253, 115465635, 115487649, 115490252, 115508314, 115510643, and 115511220. All that remains are around 250 tiny toolsheds and doghouses, many of which ... | |
| 106117545 by ReliantGuyZ @ 2021-06-09 21:13 | 1 | 2021-12-28 11:15 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for adding these floor counts and roof shapes; they make 3D renders of Loveland look a lot more recognizable. Note that the floor count should normally exclude the attic, but you can explicitly specify the attic by setting roof:levels to 1. |
| 115231332 by Minh Nguyen @ 2021-12-22 02:14 | 1 | 2021-12-26 15:12 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,I don't think it's necessary to have so many tags for the charges here - it's common to combine them into one tag, e.g.charge = 1 USD/motorcar; 2 USD/hgv; ...Could you consider changing this? |
| 2 | 2021-12-26 19:21 | Minh Nguyen | Unfortunately, the access keys as units would be inconsistent with the differing prices per axle along other sections of the highway, which require conditional tagging. There would still need to be charge:txtag for the TxTag-specific prices too. It looks like there is precedent for keeping the price... | |
| 3 | 2021-12-26 19:26 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, I don’t mean a fixed price per axle; there are sections that have unrelated prices depending on the number of axles on the vehicle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3248852590 These signs are newer than the signs showing prices by vehicle type that I saw in Bing Streetside, so th... | |
| 4 | 2021-12-26 19:59 | mueschel ♦6,567 | (I don't say your choice of tags is wrong in any sense, I just think that we could keep it a bit more "compact" with fewer keys. "charge:txdot" seems necessary to have in your case as well as the charge:conditional for the axle counts)It's not a recent addition to t... | |
| 5 | 2021-12-26 20:54 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, I hadn’t noticed that earlier appearance. In any case, this syntax is disputed in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:charge#Proposed_advanced_usage so I’ll throw my 2¢ into the talk page.You’re the expert on key order, so I’ll defer to you on that point... | |
| 57732228 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-04-02 08:21 | 1 | 2021-12-21 20:16 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5521977792What is craft=television describing? |
| 2 | 2021-12-22 09:35 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | Wouldn't the use of amenity=studio be a better choice?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3DstudioIt has more than 10000 uses while craft=television only 2! | |
| 3 | 2021-12-25 19:10 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for asking. Based on the DirecTV logo visible in the window in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=478695443574475 , I surmised that it’s the office of a satellite TV dish installation business. I’m aware of shop=telecommunication and office=telecommunication, but those tags d... | |
| 50514986 by clay_c @ 2017-07-24 03:15 | 1 | 2021-12-21 21:29 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, do you recall why the U.S. 62 designation needed to be moved to the end of the list of route numbers in these ref tags? Comparing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255092322 to https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1919723721518855 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197144648 to https://www.map... |
| 2 | 2021-12-22 04:19 | clay_c ♦489 | Honestly there wasn't much thought behind it. I put it in that order because I felt US 62 was sort of a hodgepodge of other roads that formed a neat grid. It doesn't reflect any on-the-ground reality. | |
| 114125647 by Minh Nguyen @ 2021-11-23 06:48 | 1 | 2021-12-03 18:14 | b-jazz ♦655 | I'm guessing these aren't really curbs, but more appropriately very short walls, right? The fact that the way doubles back on itself (ie. nodes A-B-A) leads me to think this was done on purpose to indicate it is "lower" on both sides. But this triggers various Q/A tools like OSM ... |
| 2 | 2021-12-03 20:32 | Minh Nguyen | They’re more like curbs than walls, hence the kerb:height=6" tags. They’re tapered so that emergency vehicles and delivery vans can back in directly from the through lanes. Here’s what they look like on the ground:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frontage_lane_on_So... | |
| 3 | 2021-12-05 17:33 | b-jazz ♦655 | A double sided tag seems like the right answer to me. In the meantime, maybe they can be represented with parallel lines separated by a small distance? | |
| 4 | 2021-12-05 22:46 | Minh Nguyen | Parallel lines would represent these standalone curbs too similarly to curbs that surround a traffic island, but anyways Bing imagery doesn’t have high enough resolution to distinguish the gaps in the curbs that allow stormwater to pass through, let alone the edges of the curbs.In changese... | |
| 103110137 by clay_c @ 2021-04-17 16:24 | 1 | 2021-11-21 01:53 | Minh Nguyen | Are these county roads actually ever referred to by prefixed route numbers like “CR 600 E”? I’m afraid you might’ve copied some mistaken tagging I did years ago in counties to the south. I even blithely ignored the north–south part of the street names because they didn&... |
| 2 | 2021-11-21 16:50 | clay_c ♦489 | These roads are variably signed as "CR 600 E" or simply "600 E". I can see the rationale for removing the route relations. I'll pop in on the mailing list. | |
| 59692204 by Júlio Cayres @ 2018-06-09 14:24 | 1 | 2018-06-09 14:26 | viloan ♦9,905 | Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/BrasilEnquanto você está se acostumando co... |
| 2 | 2018-09-30 13:06 | jlevente ♦31 | Hello! What is the correct location of this charging station? Currently the POI is placed in the grassy area between SR84 and I595. Did you add it here by accident is it somewhere nearby?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5677910530#map=19/26.12140/-80.35374 | |
| 3 | 2021-11-20 17:23 | Minh Nguyen | I deleted the charging station in changeset 114034899. | |
| 113772764 by Blue_Hail_Damage @ 2021-11-14 17:45 | 1 | 2021-11-14 17:50 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hello,A couple of key things about OpenStreetMap are https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only - you can't just make up names for things. If there's a sign that everyone can use to know that that really is the n... |
| 2 | 2021-11-14 17:55 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | One possibility - maybe "loc_name" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Local_names_.28loc_name.29 might be appropriate, if everyone locally really does call it that? | |
| 3 | 2021-11-14 17:58 | Blue_Hail_Damage ♦1 | Okay, I will put up a sign. What are the requirements for a sign? Like how big does it have to be etc. | |
| 4 | 2021-11-14 18:44 | Minh Nguyen | However “vanity street names“ are usually posted is fine – it doesn’t have to be a standard street name sign, but it would have to be posted in a permanent way. In general, roadways are only named in OSM if the name can reasonably be used for wayfinding. Otherwise, someone ge... | |
| 5 | 2021-11-14 18:52 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | As long as someone can travel to this location and verify the name, it seems fine to me. | |
| 6 | 2021-11-14 19:49 | Arlo James Barnes ♦100 | Quite aside from OSM's policies about this, but what does 'meat without feet' mean? Is that referring to a fish? | |
| 7 | 2021-11-17 02:39 | Blue_Hail_Damage ♦1 | Doesn't have much of a meaning, it's just fun to say, that's all. Can interpret it however you want. | |
| 8 | 2021-11-17 02:41 | Blue_Hail_Damage ♦1 | I'm just gonna duct tape a street sign onto the telephone pole right next to the street. Is that permanent enough? | |
| 9 | 2021-11-17 02:46 | Minh Nguyen | Technically, it would be more difficult to remove than the name tag on this driveway. 😛 | |
| 10 | 2021-11-17 03:03 | Blue_Hail_Damage ♦1 | I think every American should have the right to name their own driveway in both the physical and virtual world, that's all. | |
| 11 | 2021-11-17 03:22 | Minh Nguyen | Well, it’s your driveway in a free country. If naming it motivates you to stick around and help us build out coverage of the East Side, then there are bigger fish to fry, like all the missing subdivision names around here. And if you really do care about this name, you can probably get a custo... | |
| 12 | 2021-11-17 22:49 | Arlo James Barnes ♦100 | I think you mean that there are bigger meat without feet to fry. But yes, I agree with Minh -- a belated welcome to OSM! | |
| 13 | 2021-11-18 00:22 | Blue_Hail_Damage ♦1 | Just ordered a street sign. Either gonna place it on the fence post or utility pole. Also, yes, I will start making more meaningful contributions to this database. I can start with the creek that randomly stops near Shayler Road. It actually runs through my parents property and past the Clough P... | |
| 14 | 2021-11-19 23:25 | Arlo James Barnes ♦100 | Nice, are you aware of OpenDroneMap / OpenAerialMap? These make it easy to convert drone footage into tiled, orthorectified imagery consumable by iD or JOSM. | |
| 31825678 by qwerty10 @ 2015-06-08 18:42 | 1 | 2021-11-11 22:55 | ZLima12 ♦252 | Hi,I noticed that the value for the key "source:hgv:national_network" was altered on the ways of 198 that you touched. A space in the value was changed to the hexadecimal ASCII encoding of a space.Do you recall doing this intentionally? If not, I suspect that this was a flaw in the... |
| 2 | 2021-11-12 16:53 | qwerty10 ♦1 | I did not do this intentionally so it sounds like an editor issue. | |
| 3 | 2021-11-12 23:40 | Minh Nguyen | This was caused by https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2657, which has since been fixed. | |
| 26229502 by Minh Nguyen @ 2014-10-21 08:29 | 1 | 2021-11-11 10:10 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Are the roads supposed to be this far offset from regular imagery alignment? |
| 2 | 2021-11-11 10:31 | Minh Nguyen | Which roads are you referring to? This is an ancient changeset based on imagery that’s no longer available online, so I don’t think I can really answer your question without more information. | |
| 72199190 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-07-12 22:19 | 1 | 2021-11-10 23:26 | txemt ♦70 | Out of curiosity.....why is Crescent Avenue split, but St Andrews isn't toward the west of this intersection? |
| 2 | 2021-11-11 10:28 | Minh Nguyen | TIGER represents divided roads as single lines, so we have to manually split them into parallel ways. I did that for the remainder of St. Andrews in changeset 113645057. | |
| 112226209 by Fluffy89502 @ 2021-10-07 16:57 | 1 | 2021-10-12 01:55 | Minh Nguyen | 👍 |
| 70665988 by user_5359 @ 2019-05-27 15:36 | 1 | 2021-10-01 01:23 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 70665554 had eviscerated this relation by mistake, leaving just one of the members in tact. I’ve reverted that changeset and this one in changeset 111940282 to restore the full 3D building. |
| 70665554 by suspender guy @ 2019-05-27 15:20 | 1 | 2019-05-27 15:41 | user_5359 ♦19,375 | Welcome to OSM! Did you see the property: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34230551/history? This was also marked as church. |
| 2 | 2021-10-01 01:22 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, what you deleted were actually the details that allow some maps to show the St. Peter in Chains building in 3D. The editor you were using didn’t recognize 3D building parts at the time, so I’m sure it looked like a mess, but it’s better now. I’ve undone your changes in ch... | |
| 110780659 by pedronav @ 2021-09-06 06:53 | 1 | 2021-09-15 10:07 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for taking the time to detail these driveways and shared driveways, especially those gates. In case you aren’t aware, the access=private tag is specifically about restrictions on who may enter or pass through a property. There’s a different tag, ownership=private, for indicati... |
| 2 | 2021-09-18 08:30 | pedronav ♦2 | Hi Minh. I'm using access=private so those roads can't be used by routing, especially when there is a gate. Should I be using access=destination instead?Routing was my intent and not to declare ownership, should I have used that instead? Thanks! | |
| 3 | 2021-09-18 16:19 | Minh Nguyen | You’re absolutely correct in using access=private on driveways that have gates or no trespassing signs. I was just unsure about your intent because some of the driveways didn’t appear to have gates mapped; I didn’t know if you had intended to tag all driveways as access=private on ... | |
| 4 | 2021-09-18 17:08 | pedronav ♦2 | Google Maps is now showing those roads grayed out because they are private.That's another reason why I was setting the access to private, so mapbox would show then also in a lighter color to indicate they are not public roads (would it be better to change their type to driveways instead of ... | |
| 5 | 2021-09-18 17:26 | Minh Nguyen | Some of these may be good candidates for tagging as Driveway (service=driveway) or Alley (service=alley), though a plain Service Road (highway=service) would be appropriate for shared driveways, at least until a more specific tag for them arises.The access=* key is intended for a legal access re... | |
| 110695794 by Abraham Muldrow @ 2021-09-03 21:06 | 1 | 2021-09-06 09:18 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I changed this stretch of the 101 back to a motorway because signs at the Monterey St. on-ramp say “Freeway Entrance”.Bicycles are sometimes allowed on Interstates in California. (Notably, a large stretch of I-280 in San Mateo Co. allows bicycles.) The roadways in question alread... |
| 110199187 by txemt @ 2021-08-25 02:05 | 1 | 2021-08-26 17:45 | Chris Lawrence ♦20 | Please be more careful in merging features - the roundabout at US 19/GA 26 was split into segments for a reason (to ensure relations were contiguous).Also, please stop promoting residential streets and dirt roads to primary/secondary w/o verifying importance in field. |
| 2 | 2021-08-27 02:39 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | Hi @Chris Lawrence. Regading "promoting residential streets and dirt roads", I don't see any of that in this changeset. If you could comment on the changeset that has the problem, it would be more helpful for the community to understand where there might be a problem. | |
| 3 | 2021-08-27 03:14 | txemt ♦70 | I'm only promoting streets and dirt roads based on Georgia DOT's functional classification site https://itos.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=962a2591f91a4303aeafe016ba8db96b and the OSM wiki for Georgia in regards to functional classification https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/... | |
| 4 | 2021-08-27 07:11 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, you spotted a very outdated line on the wiki that was added back in 2009, before the U.S. community had really coalesced around any best practices for road classification. I think it just got overlooked in the years since. I’m sorry it wound up causing confusion.In general, a state DOT... | |
| 5 | 2021-08-27 11:54 | txemt ♦70 | I understand that the page may be from 2009, but it's still out there as a solid piece of instruction for Georgia. If I were editing in Texas or Alabama, I wouldn't use that reference, I'd use the reference for that specific state. I also don't believe it has caused any confusion... | |
| 6 | 2021-08-27 17:36 | Chris Lawrence ♦20 | @ZeLoneWolf: This changeset contains a good example of the functional classification problem: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110312893. See also e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108454959. | |
| 7 | 2021-09-01 14:50 | txemt ♦70 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Txemt#State_of_Georgia | |
| 109947608 by lrhill @ 2021-08-19 18:00 | 1 | 2021-08-23 06:27 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for these updates! By the way, it isn’t quite up-to-date enough to show the new elementary school coming in, but the KyFromAbove 2020 imagery is now available in the sidebar and is a little bit newer than the Bing imagery you were looking at. It might be handy for other updates you make... |
| 104567565 by amakarevich_lyft @ 2021-05-12 10:52 | 1 | 2021-08-22 01:01 | Minh Nguyen | These destinations are inaccurate. Not every green sign should be recorded in the destination key; some of them should’ve been tagged as destination:symbol=train_station.Destinations on freeways in most of San José have already been reviewed many times for accuracy. Minor mistakes o... |
| 2 | 2021-08-23 10:35 | amakarevich_lyft ♦20 | Hi, Minh NguyenMy name is Artem, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Many thanks for fixing my mistake. Sorry for any inconvenience these changes may have caused. The Lyft OSM team has already updated the policy about the destination signs tagging and I can assure you, that in the futu... | |
| 109719499 by Minh Nguyen @ 2021-08-16 01:02 | 1 | 2021-08-16 03:25 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | Did UN and US officially recognize the "new" country?🤨Just because a bunch of thugs with guns declare something, doesn't mean that's the new fact... --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109719499 |
| 2 | 2021-08-16 03:36 | Minh Nguyen | Please follow the links to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108111555 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30747910 . This change merely clarifies that, whatever happened in Afghanistan today, the flags in Washington and New York represent the internationally recognized government. | |
| 3 | 2021-08-16 03:52 | Minh Nguyen | I belatedly realized the flagpole in Washington is on private property. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109721756 adds the flagpole in front of the embassy (still presumably flying the U.S.-recognized flag, designed in 2013). | |
| 62564979 by eluser @ 2018-09-13 20:35 | 1 | 2021-08-03 08:38 | Minh Nguyen | FYI, this changeset somehow removed much of the U.S. 278 route relation, and changeset 63079505 subsequently created a redundant relation for U.S. 278 that also had large gaps. I think I fixed the issue in changesets 109072963, 109075864, and 109077198, but if you had intended to make any changes to... |
| 63079505 by njtbusfan @ 2018-10-01 02:08 | 1 | 2021-08-03 08:38 | Minh Nguyen | FYI, this changeset somehow created a redundant relation for U.S. 278 that had large gaps, possibly based on a relation that was broken in changeset 62564979. I think I fixed the issue in changesets 109072963, 109075864, and 109077198, but if you had intended to make any changes to this route relati... |
| 108548780 by Friendly_Ghost @ 2021-07-24 23:02 | 1 | 2021-07-25 03:44 | tekim ♦696 | Pretty arrogant for you to post yet another changeset with a huge geographic extent after you have been informed via changeset comments on one of your other changesets that this is not appropriate. Also, this appears to be a mechanical edit, which is also not appropriate. --- ... |
| 2 | 2021-07-25 08:33 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Hello Tekim, No one seems to have a problem with the contents of my changesets so far, only with the method, which I think is ridiculous because it's one of the few ways to get this kind of thing done. I wouldn't call it a mechanical edit, because I reviewed all of the tag combinat... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-25 17:18 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | Just because people don't comment on your changesets doesn't mean they completely approve of you making giant multi-continent bounding boxes. I too would appreciate if you limited your edits to smaller geographic regions so that each changeset could be evaluated to make sure there are no p... | |
| 4 | 2021-07-25 17:49 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Then how would you prefer to review my 3200 changes: in 10, 100 or 1000 changesets? How many people would bother to review 1,000 very similar tiny changesets?There is no sweet spot that will please everyone. There are just a whole lot of outdated and erroneous tags. I just fixed a lot of them to... | |
| 5 | 2021-07-25 17:57 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | By state or last by general geographic regions. Best case I'd prefer it split up by major populated areas. Because your changeset is so huge, I can't even tell where most of your changes are...And due to the nature of OSM, your bounding box also included a bunch of other countries which ... | |
| 6 | 2021-07-25 18:33 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Nobody wants to do the same edit separately for each state, and even then people would complain about state-wide edits that are only a few hundred changes. Changes like this just need to be done. Of course I wouldn't create tiny edits across the globe in a single changeset, but this one is ... | |
| 7 | 2021-07-25 18:43 | tekim ♦696 | > Then how would you prefer to review my 3200 changes If you don't have enough respect for our community to follow our norms and invest the time, effort, and skill (or recruit others with the necessary time and skill to help you) to do things inline with community expectations and rules... | |
| 8 | 2021-07-25 19:13 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Who are you to dictate norms to anyone? OSM does not know the concept of authority. We collaborate. I fixed your tags, you're welcome. "data consumers can easily translate" - or we can just produce good data in the first place, which is what I'm doing. Of course a few &qu... | |
| 9 | 2021-07-25 19:21 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Furthermore, you didn't answer my question: how would you prefer to review my 3,200 changes? | |
| 10 | 2021-07-25 19:30 | tekim ♦696 | I would prefer to just review those in my metro area or county. | |
| 11 | 2021-07-25 19:35 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | In that case you can easily use achavi (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=108548780) to zoom in to your area and review each specific object separately. It's simply not feasible to split up thematic map changes per county, unless you know of a JOSM tool that can perform that kind of... | |
| 12 | 2021-07-25 20:30 | snoozingnewt ♦82 | I don't think this argument matters at all. Does it actually harm the map? No. Does it inconvenience you in any way? Not with the right tools. Personally, I'm completely fine with these edits.And by the way tekim, the wiki states "use of find-and-replace functionality using a st... | |
| 13 | 2021-07-25 20:39 | tekim ♦696 | If every data element (way, node, relation) was individually reviewed, then it is not a mechanical edit, but based on what Casper has said, that is not what happened here (for example, there was no mention of loading all elements about to be changed into something like the todo list and looking at e... | |
| 14 | 2021-07-25 20:49 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | You mean you want me to look at all 3,2k buildings individually and replace the same tags over and over again? The ctrl+F tool was invented and implemented specifically for this kind of usage. | |
| 15 | 2021-07-25 21:06 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | >Does it actually harm the map? No.@snoozingnewt, but the issue at hand. Do you know for sure that every single one of these 3200 changes is correct for the situation it's in? That's why people monitor the map to spot any potential issues, intentional or not. It's very difficult ... | |
| 16 | 2021-07-25 21:20 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | > It's very difficult to review a single changeset with 3200 changes.It's even more difficult to review 3,2k changesets with 1 change each. Choices have to be made and seeing that no one had taken up the job of updating these tags, I made this choice. There is no single solution tha... | |
| 17 | 2021-07-25 21:24 | snoozingnewt ♦82 | @MxxCon it would obviously time out with the entire changeset, but there's an option to make the bounding box smaller. If you're only reviewing one area, it shouldn't be a problem.Ex: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/802176475230371864/868966985076187196/unknown.png | |
| 18 | 2021-07-26 02:07 | Zaneo ♦41 | Specifically addressing this point:>Just because people don't comment on your changesets doesn't mean they completely approve of you making giant multi-continent bounding boxes.If people don't raise issues they have, then they can't be upset when those issues aren'... | |
| 19 | 2021-07-26 03:08 | skquinn ♦804 | The standard in the US seems to be one changeset per state in most cases. In Texas I try to keep them smaller when feasible as Texas is huge.I agree that the bounding box system isn't perfect but it's what we've got. | |
| 20 | 2021-07-26 03:35 | Zaneo ♦41 | Are there any reliable tools for determining which "state" a node belongs too? (On a global level).Or is it something like:Query all the administrative boundaries. Find out what level is state in each country. Find if the node is enclosed in the polygon of the administrative boundary... | |
| 21 | 2021-07-28 04:58 | Minh Nguyen | Take a look at the syntax that the Overpass turbo query wizard generates for the “in” operator <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_turbo/Wizard#Location_Filters> or, more directly for JOSM, the area filter in the raw query language <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/... | |
| 22 | 2021-07-28 04:59 | Minh Nguyen | (Embarrassingly, I miscounted the number of boundaries above, but you get the idea.) | |
| 23 | 2021-07-28 09:56 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Hello Minh NguyenIt's an interesting thought and I've already considered it. What you propose means that I have to check the same tags 50 times, which is an awful lot of extra work, and people would still complain that my changesets cover entire states while the clusters are in cities.... | |
| 24 | 2021-07-28 23:37 | Lee Carré ♦665 | This BS continues elsewhere, wonderful.There's way too much nonsense to even begin addressing.Casper; at this rate you're gonna end up being reported for vandalism, disruption, or similar. I doubt that admins will be quite so patient with you before dropping the banhammer.Best of... | |
| 106856749 by Joseph R P @ 2021-06-23 19:11 | 1 | 2021-06-24 14:58 | jumbanho ♦146 | Do you have a reference for "Trunk roads should never directly intersect with motorways" I've never seen this asserted before. |
| 2 | 2021-06-24 17:44 | Joseph R P ♦342 | Trunk roads should never directly intersect with motorways because any road shouldn't directly intersect with motorways (unless it's a service road) without motorway links. It technically breaks the definition of a motorway which should only be accessed by links and not directly by other m... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-25 16:29 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | There is no issue with a trunk road (or any other class, really) directly merging into a motorway. It is generally rare because there is normally a decision point where the main road divides into multiple ramps to service various directions of travel. However, in this case, UT 201 cleanly merges i... | |
| 4 | 2021-06-26 04:23 | Joseph R P ♦342 | The examples that you provided are of motorway intersecting instances, nothing containing two other road classes converging or splitting. I believe a motorway spurring off or merging into another is perfectly fine when it is, for example, four lanes splitting into a pair of two-lane carriageways, al... | |
| 5 | 2021-07-28 03:44 | Minh Nguyen | If the ramps are to remain highway=motorway_link, then that classification shouldn’t arbitrarily end at the foot of the flyover bridges. If the railroad weren’t there to require a bridge in the eastbound direction, I’m guessing you wouldn’t’ve ended the ramp at exactly ... | |
| 108372813 by YuliyaShustava_lyft @ 2021-07-21 15:05 | 1 | 2021-07-21 17:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, these are wrong-way arrows, not straight turn lane indications. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Identifying_a_turn_indication . The example on the page shows a different style of arrow, but Caltrans sometimes uses this style of arrow for wrong-way arrows too. |
| 2 | 2021-07-22 09:05 | YuliyaShustava_lyft ♦45 | Hi, Minh NguyenMy name is Yuliya and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention to this. These arrows look like straight turn lane indications. But taking into account the shape of the motorway link, I agree with you that these are wrong-way arrows. So I remove... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-24 04:15 | Minh Nguyen | Hi Yulia, no worries, I recognize that it’s a confusing situation for mappers. This particular situation was harmless, but I wanted to make sure your team was aware of the distinction in case there are situations where similar arrows elsewhere would produce misleading guidance for users. | |
| 4 | 2021-07-26 11:14 | YuliyaShustava_lyft ♦45 | Hi, Minh NguyenThe Lyft OSM team has been updated on this case based on your comment. I can assure you that in the future we will not add the tag “turn:lanes” according to such wrong-way arrows. Thanks again for the detailed explanation. Thank you,Yuliya | |
| 108344752 by Tigereye007 @ 2021-07-21 03:29 | 1 | 2021-07-21 15:23 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for this update! Do you happen to know if there’s still a tornado siren on the roof? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6719056946 I suppose it’s possible it got replaced by a modern, pole-mounted siren nearby. |
| 2 | 2021-07-22 01:54 | Tigereye007 ♦1 | I suspect it’s still on the roof, however I can’t say I’ve really tried to see it up there. Next time I walk around there, I’ll try and have a look, and I’ll update it if it’s moved. | |
| 98079317 by dchiles @ 2021-01-25 00:17 | 1 | 2021-07-17 22:37 | Minh Nguyen | These relations were somehow broken in changeset 93689318, but the correct fix would’ve been to revert that changeset rather than delete the relations, which represented U.S. Route 101. The relations have been restored in changeset 108175328 and were unrepurposed in changeset 108175438. |
| 71619765 by TheDude05 @ 2019-06-26 02:56 | 1 | 2020-01-21 12:37 | atomwaffen Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2020-01-21 18:53 | TheDude05 ♦7 | It's not so I didn't. Might want to change your username, that group is pretty violent and intolerant, you wouldn't want to be confused with a white supremacist group. | |
| 3 | 2020-01-21 19:42 | freebeer ♦1,598 | the word Atomwaffen has a particular meaning, and i suspect most of the world, including myself, do not associate in any way with a particular ideological group.looking at this mapper's recent edit history confirms my expectations. a google text search makes scant mention of the US-based g... | |
| 4 | 2020-01-21 20:24 | TheDude05 ♦7 | It not only has inroads in Germany it also has branches in the UK, Ukraine, Canada, and the Baltic States. They have been responsible for at least 7 murders one of which was a openly gay Jew who was targeted, kidnapped, and stabbed over 20 times. Atomwaffen has also made threats against the Royal ... | |
| 5 | 2020-09-28 02:40 | ppjj ♦56 | I'm reverting this. It's low-quality, and it's copied from a map that might not even hap a compatible license. | |
| 6 | 2020-09-28 03:01 | TheDude05 ♦7 | It's not copied but through GIS processes it is derived from a public domain map which is 100% compatible because it has no license whatsoever. Secondly this is a way of deriving land cover that is used in many maps by professionals. Thirdly you should not be reverting something without havin... | |
| 7 | 2020-09-28 03:02 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Near as I can tell Jersey is a long ways away from Coke County Texas | |
| 8 | 2020-10-24 18:45 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.I'm writing this to address some of the issues that have been raised above.Firstly, it;s clearly an import. The source says "Texas Natural Resources Information System raster ran through QGIS for conversion and cleaning, Mapbox Sate... | |
| 9 | 2020-10-24 19:01 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Hi Andy,I don't feel that this qualifies as an import due to how removed it is from the source material, generally speaking imports don't go through transitions except those necessary for it to be recognized by the map (tags, relations, sometimes simplification). As for a license ther... | |
| 10 | 2020-10-24 19:04 | TheDude05 ♦7 | I love this idea that proven processes of land classification made by professionals in the field are somehow suspect and erroneous to the self appointed gate keepers of the map or their niche interests. | |
| 11 | 2020-10-24 21:01 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | @TheDude05 Re "As for your Mapbox satellite idea we do know that these types of area are generalizations of underlying vegetation right?" Yes, of course - one key question is whether those generalisations are any good or not. That's why it's important to discuss with the rest o... | |
| 12 | 2020-10-24 21:27 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Again by the definitions and rules of imports as I have read them and as have been spoken about in other groups I still don't feel this is an import based on those definitions. You may disagree and since you sit on the DWG what you do is your decision. I honestly am at the point where you and... | |
| 13 | 2020-10-24 22:18 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | What makes you think that this is not an import? | |
| 14 | 2020-10-24 22:39 | TheDude05 ♦7 | I created the data using GIS processing tools, I hand edited in JOSM, there is no license to public domain maps. It is no different than having a friend collect GPS points, processing them in other software, and then loading them into JOSM and fine tuning the data through hand edits. You have made... | |
| 15 | 2020-10-24 23:01 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Let's do a hypothetical to see why you believe this is an import. Let's say I go to a museum and while there I notice a map on display showing historical trails between the California Missions that was made during the time of St. Junipero Serra. Now I take a high resolution photo of this... | |
| 16 | 2020-10-25 07:52 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | > Would you consider that an import?Yes, based on your description of the process and the definition on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import "Importing is the process of uploading external data to OSM". In this case you're doing exactly that - copying everything from a map... | |
| 17 | 2021-04-22 23:59 | Allison P ♦1,136 | There's been discussion about reverting this changeset, but no such thing has occurred. | |
| 18 | 2021-04-23 01:03 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Probably because the discussion hasn't lead to a confident conclusion. If a member of the DWG dropped it then it should probably be left alone by others who are not in geographic proximity to the area as well but feel free to bump it up the chain and we will see what happens. | |
| 19 | 2021-06-22 02:27 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | Hi, this is a courtesy note to let everyone know that I've reverted this land cover import. We discussed this on Slack and concluded that there were considerable quality issues (which appear to be artifacts of your generalization approach) with this undiscussed import which warranted its remov... | |
| 20 | 2021-06-22 02:34 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Just to satisfy my curiosity under what authority did you revert my dataset, how many people on slack agreed, and what percentage of total mappers would this consensus constitute if it was only a slack discussion used as your authority? I would also point out that the import guidelines need some up... | |
| 21 | 2021-06-22 03:28 | compdude ♦169 | Here's the link to the Slack thread where this was discussed: https://app.slack.com/client/T029HV94T/CCJ2P6KCH/thread/CCJ2P6KCH-1624314522.088100I didn't participate in this discussion but you can see that most of the people who participated in that discussion agreed that the data qual... | |
| 22 | 2021-06-22 03:38 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Again by that definition of an outside data source being an import I could use a handheld gps and bring those points into JOSM and that would be considered an import.It seems that there isn't a very defined nature to the process which is a shame.I asked how many people, what authority, and ... | |
| 23 | 2021-06-22 04:03 | compdude ♦169 | The difference is that an import is bringing in data to OSM that was created by someone other than you, usually like a governmental source as is the case here, as opposed to GPS data which you would have most likely collected yourself. And using the aerial imagery to trace landcover isn't an im... | |
| 24 | 2021-06-22 04:59 | TheDude05 ♦7 | Ah but this data I have created myself using tools in the same way as your example so how is it an import?Look at other vegetation areas and you will see discontinuity, holes, and areas that claim a vegetation but don't have it as well. Georgia has been mentioned and I've seen it in o... | |
| 25 | 2021-06-22 05:11 | compdude ♦169 | But the fact that you claim to have used an external data source, (TX National Resources Information System) as opposed to just tracing from aerial imagery, is what makes this an import. If it isn't an import, why did you indicate that an external government data source was used? | |
| 26 | 2021-06-22 06:51 | Minh Nguyen | Documentation and consensus is the standard for bulk additions of data into OSM, not for backing out undiscussed bulk edits. Large-scale edits have been summarily reverted countless times in the past, not necessarily by anyone in a position of authority. What sets Coke County apart is only that it t... | |
| 80089648 by fintler @ 2020-01-26 07:00 | 1 | 2021-06-19 09:09 | Minh Nguyen | Speed limits measured in miles per hour must have the suffix “mph”; otherwise, they’re interpreted as kilometers per hour. |
| 2 | 2021-06-19 10:10 | Minh Nguyen | Additionally, the surface street that runs parallel to the freeway has a speed limit of 30 mph, not 65 mph, even it also happens to be named Guadalupe Parkway.Changesets 106625261 and 106625786 correct the speed limits along these two roads. | |
| 33257116 by stevea @ 2015-08-11 03:15 | 1 | 2021-06-19 10:03 | Minh Nguyen | 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 ♦304 | 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... | |
| 105811302 by tguen @ 2021-06-04 04:55 | 1 | 2021-06-04 05:40 | stevea ♦304 | tguen, "Metro" is not a de facto government and should not be tagged admin_level=7 (nor boundary=administrative). In fact, it is described in Wikipedia as a "planning organization" and indeed, OSM had this discussion (and came to the same conclusion here: https://wiki.openstree... |
| 2 | 2021-06-05 02:32 | tguen ♦86 | If someone is tagging things incorrectly, you should inform them, and give them a chance to fix it themselves. You made it sound as if you would, but then edited both the wiki and the relation within 5 minutes. You've invented a new (undocumented) tag that is a non-obvious abbreviation. I'... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-05 06:49 | Minh Nguyen | (Coming here from a brief discussion in OSMUS Slack.) The discussions about COGs on that wiki talk page may not be 100% applicable to this case, since the MPO function is only one of Metro’s functions. Unlike every other COG or MPO, Metro has at the very least an electoral boundary.That sa... | |
| 4 | 2021-06-05 06:56 | stevea ♦304 | I am very supportive of the tag boundary=special_district in this case. I have postulated similar tagging before (using acronyms), though I like the "fully expressed" special_district value. It is appropriate and unambiguous. | |
| 5 | 2021-06-06 18:42 | stevea ♦304 | It is also true that "someone might write some succinct wiki about this."The value special_district fits into (what in the USA) are described as one of two "not-governments" by US Census bureau (which I've wiki-documented myself): true "governments" of state, c... | |
| 105807566 by boopington @ 2021-06-04 03:05 | 1 | 2021-06-04 18:55 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Hey there, remember what we just discussed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5081 about meaningful comments? In this case, perhaps you could say, 'removed service road due to new construction.' That'd be a great comment. And no one will second guess these edits :) |
| 2 | 2021-06-04 19:33 | Minh Nguyen | Also, you probably noticed that the access road was replaced by one just a couple yards over to the east. In the future, please consider adding the replacement road. After all, a missing road is worse than a misaligned one. | |
| 102013909 by gauravjuvekar @ 2021-03-31 00:32 | 1 | 2021-05-28 20:59 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, please don’t replace properly mapped roundabouts (even minor traffic calming roundabouts) with the traffic_calming=island tag. Oversimplifying the roundabout creates ambiguity about the relationship of the roadway to the objects inside the island, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node... |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 21:45 | gauravjuvekar ♦1 | Hi, those are not roundabouts because the intersection has a stop sign in only 1 direction. 1 direction of the road has priority. Please see the examples tablehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout#Examples | |
| 3 | 2021-05-29 01:13 | Minh Nguyen | OK, changeset 105516179 replaces junction=roundabout with junction=circular, which is more general, but keeps the circular way to retain that level of detail. | |
| 101639236 by siddhaam @ 2021-03-24 10:54 | 1 | 2021-05-21 21:00 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, these stubs are already built, not just proposed. It’s important to map these stubs as one-ways; otherwise, when a driver hears a voice instruction for this roundabout, the exit count will be off by one. This situation occurs frequently in areas that are being built in phases, so I’d... |
| 2 | 2021-05-24 08:33 | siddhaam ♦8 | Hi,Thank you for providing the information and correcting the edit.Apologies for the wrong edit.I'll ensure to map such segments as one-way going forward.Looking forward to learn more from youRegards,siddhaam | |
| 103012310 by Saucon Support @ 2021-04-15 18:39 Active block | 1 | 2021-04-20 20:29 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset incorrectly changed San Francisco into a speed limit enforcement relation. I changed San Francisco back into an administrative boundary in changeset 103293987, but if you had intended to add a speed limit enforcement relation for N. Five Points Rd., you may want to go back in and try ... |
| 2 | 2022-03-04 15:21 | Saucon Support Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 102522840 by MathO24 @ 2021-04-08 05:09 | 1 | 2021-04-08 12:32 | wireguy ♦548 | Hi MathO24. What you consider clutter was put there by Amazon to help route their drivers. If you are concerned with clutter, you could reduce the number of nodes used to create sidewalks. Please revert this change. |
| 2 | 2021-04-16 03:54 | MathO24 ♦3 | Hello! Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to [this](http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Should-driveways-be-on-OSM-td5855643.html#a5855753) thread that mentions specifically mapping the long ones based on the location. Considering there is a majority of unmapped, short, and private residenti... | |
| 3 | 2021-04-16 21:55 | Minh Nguyen | That was the general sentiment a long time ago, when we were daunted by the challenge of mapping every road and meanwhile found it annoying that imported TIGER roads often misclassified driveways as through roads. (If I’m not mistaken, at the time, the map legend in the right sidebar even said... | |
| 4 | 2021-04-17 00:16 | MathO24 ♦3 | Thanks for the information! I tried to revert it, but it gave me a system error. What would you advise I do? | |
| 5 | 2021-04-17 00:31 | wireguy ♦548 | I revert merged inhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103084767 | |
| 95321177 by TheAdventurer64 @ 2020-12-05 02:19 | 1 | 2021-04-13 08:27 | Minh Nguyen | Campos is the owner’s last name, not the Spanish word for “camp site”. |
| 2 | 2021-04-13 08:35 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in changeset 8195579319. | |
| 76524348 by Supaplex @ 2019-11-02 10:37 | 1 | 2021-04-10 04:17 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset overwrote intentional differences between Wikidata labels (which are optimized for page titles) and OSM name tags (which are optimized for map labels and, in some cases, place more weight on on-the-ground usage). Some of these changes have since been undone, but the rest of the change... |
| 85968292 by ppjj Imports+NHD @ 2020-05-29 22:31 | 1 | 2021-03-13 23:55 | Minh Nguyen | Some of the addresses in this batch wound up getting assigned to garages or carports instead of houses. |
| 92352503 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-10-12 11:52 | 1 | 2021-03-12 03:10 | DUGA ♦548 | bridge:ref vs bridge_ref? I don't see the latter being mentioned on wiki. |
| 2 | 2021-03-12 05:45 | Minh Nguyen | bridge_ref was far and away the more common tag until this year, well after I uploaded this changeset:http://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/bridge:ref/&***/bridge_ref/The mention of bridge:ref at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#The_building_number is somewhat obscure, so I wa... | |
| 99933892 by Minh Nguyen @ 2021-02-24 22:58 | 1 | 2021-02-26 18:33 | mirror176 ♦26 | I usually leave things like 'name' as is if the building still has it as retained signage until that is gone. Contacts direct people to website for how to reach out to the company for final things like customers picking up equipment being repaired or vendors getting product back which woul... |
| 2 | 2021-02-26 21:25 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for taking a look. I see your point, but I’m hesitant to tag ghost signs with the name key because a data consumer could look at the combination of that key and addr:housenumber or shop (as in shop=vacant) and make it look too much like a shop by the name Fry’s. If I were to add a... | |
| 3 | 2021-02-27 00:59 | mirror176 ♦26 | I set opening_hours=closed (better than disused:opening_hours=... as they are not open to general public; guess I could have put 9-17 as I've overheard from phoenix, az employees doing final closing steps and some strict access= terms, but why try that hard for a short term tag) and changed sho... | |
| 4 | 2021-02-27 02:39 | Minh Nguyen | Yeah, it’s an awkward situation to be sure. To complicate matters, at least one of these locations actually closed for good a few months ago, but we hadn’t gotten around to retagging it until now. | |
| 76520412 by Supaplex @ 2019-11-02 06:02 | 1 | 2020-12-06 10:41 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | This changeset changed the name of the District of Columbia relation to "Washington, D.C." in many languages, including English.Is it intentional?Tajik name was "Washington District of Columbia" and got changed to "Washington (city)"Is it intentional?Not... |
| 2 | 2020-12-08 03:44 | Supaplex ♦10,443 | I will fix the problem tag with the correct name.I think in OSM the problem of import Wikidata was the coordinate data sometimes are questionable. For the license issue, Wikidata is CC0, so it is not a problem due to not handle of coordinate data. | |
| 3 | 2020-12-08 09:32 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | CC0 data may include copyrighted data - see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0"Example: the OpenAddresses project licences its output on CC0 terms, however this only applies to the lists, data format and other related material, it does not apply to the act... | |
| 4 | 2021-02-22 11:03 | lonvia ♦37 | Three months later and the relation is still broken. :( I've reinstated the names before your change now. The quality of wikidata imports is really disappointing. | |
| 5 | 2021-02-22 23:52 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for taking care of that, lonvia. Wikidata’s label quality is high in some languages but poor in others. Quite unlike OSM, most of the QA work there happens along linguistic lines rather than by geography. So IP concerns aside, any panlingual introduction of labels from Wikidata can be m... | |
| 97924212 by ottwiz @ 2021-01-21 19:21 | 1 | 2021-02-14 04:37 | rivermont ♦221 | A few small notes on road classification; tertiary doesn't just mean 'next road from secondary,' it's usually still a connector road that gets a lot of traffic. For example, osm.org/way/15642992 is a residential road (that turns into a barely existent track at the end) not tertia... |
| 2 | 2021-02-14 06:33 | ottwiz ♦385 | Hm, i probably forgot that it changes from residential to track. In Marshall county because there is decent quality imagery of Maxar, I could trace where it's really tertiary/residential or track. Because of the OSM wiki, all County Roads are marked as tertiary, so I make them all tertiary, exc... | |
| 3 | 2021-02-14 06:38 | ottwiz ♦385 | As I look back on my Marshall county job, i can see that at some places it shouldn't be really tertiary just I sticked to the guidelines(for example here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:network%3DUS:WV:Mercer)But we could make a poll on Slack about what do other peeps prefer | |
| 4 | 2021-02-14 17:37 | Minh Nguyen | The wiki page doesn’t require every county road to be tertiary; it’s just a rule of thumb. There are exceptions for sure. In my experience, the majority of fractional county roads would reasonably qualify for tertiary since they don’t dead end, but one that does probably should be ... | |
| 5 | 2021-02-14 17:39 | ottwiz ♦385 | Then i'll have to go through Marshall County roads to mark some of them as residential | |
| 6 | 2021-02-14 17:41 | Minh Nguyen | If the route number isn’t signposted, you could ignore the route number for the purpose of road classification. It somewhat surprises me that the route number isn’t signposted in this case, because West Virginia tends to signpost every road number all the way down to HARP driveways. | |
| 7 | 2021-02-14 18:00 | ottwiz ♦385 | Hm, weird.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99261067Ok, now i reclassified some there. | |
| 70402226 by PantherStrix @ 2019-05-19 06:42 | 1 | 2021-01-24 11:05 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, please be careful deleting data in areas that you’re unfamiliar with. This office is in a Vietnamese enclave. Its Vietnamese and English names have roughly equal prominence, depending on which sign you look at, and I know first-hand that people use both names interchangeably: https://www.m... |
| 2 | 2021-01-25 05:28 | PantherStrix ♦93 | Hi, I split the semicolon list to name and name:vi - so no information was deleted. In my opionion it is better to use the language differentiation then semicolon list. Also there is no difference in the prominence. It depends on the renderer/app which name will be shown - the common language of the... | |
| 3 | 2021-01-25 05:43 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for your explanation. I agree that the website:vi tag was unnecessary, so I left that change alone.Regarding the name, even though there are language-suffixed name tags, the main name tag is still important as an indication of the primary name that a user will encounter in reality rega... | |
| 96693157 by Desgagnés @ 2020-12-30 22:14 | 1 | 2020-12-31 08:51 | Minh Nguyen | Appalachia is the name of a region that covers over 200,000 square miles in 13 states. OpenStreetMap automatically calculates the bounding box of your changes, so naming a broad geographic area isn’t very helpful. Please try to provide more descriptive changeset comments that indicate what you... |
| 2 | 2020-12-31 11:11 | Desgagnés ♦2 | I'm sorry for the nondescriptive changeset comment.It's cleanup work on TIGER data: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=96693157 | |
| 3 | 2020-12-31 11:30 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for clarifying and for the Achavi link.Your changes look fine at a glance, except that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/852541565 needs to be retagged. It was previously leisure=park, which was not quite correct, but now it’s a bare boundary=protected_area. If you use boundary=p... | |
| 4 | 2020-12-31 15:11 | ZeLonewolf ♦557 | It should probably also be leisure=nature_reserve from the look of it. | |
| 96645593 by probell @ 2020-12-30 06:58 | 1 | 2020-12-30 20:26 | impiaaa ♦420 | Just because a crossing is illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be in OSM. access=no is enough. Removing it entirely means that the map is now inaccurate, and someone is going to add it back anyway. |
| 2 | 2020-12-30 20:51 | probell ♦3 | Yes, but, there IS no crossing. There are two trails that end on either side of a railroad track. The track is raised on a bed of rock 1 to 2 meters above the trail on either side.People climb up and over the railroad tracks, but that is not a crossing. It is an artifact of poor city planning th... | |
| 3 | 2020-12-30 21:43 | impiaaa ♦420 | But you deleted a service road, which does exist. | |
| 4 | 2020-12-30 22:29 | probell ♦3 | That is a gravel area used every few years for parking vehicles and temporary storage of railroad ties and other parts for railroad track maintenance projects. It is debatable whether that is a service road or a storage yard. I'm not sure that we need to make that determination.Since it is ... | |
| 5 | 2020-12-31 00:31 | impiaaa ♦420 | I don't plan on adding it back, but it's clearly visible in imagery (including the access ramp from the main road), so someone will add it back eventually, and that person might not add "access=no", making it even more dangerous than if you hadn't deleted it. | |
| 6 | 2020-12-31 00:57 | Minh Nguyen | “there is a real potential for serious public harm by mapping it is a service road”Tagging it access=no should mitigate the potential harm caused by mapping it as a service road. It will prevent any router from using the road, and every renderer indicates access=no to err on the side... | |
| 7 | 2020-12-31 01:39 | probell ♦3 | How about this idea. Since it is quite wide to be considered a road, and its main use is for storing railroad ties, not pedestrian or vehicle passage, what if we map it as an area there rather than a highway and set access=private? With that, renderers will not draw something there that looks like a... | |
| 8 | 2020-12-31 02:58 | impiaaa ♦420 | I would think that "noexit=yes" at the end of the road and the path would be enough to discourage editors from connecting it | |
| 96504296 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-12-28 02:23 | 1 | 2020-12-28 02:25 | Minh Nguyen | Sorry for the large changeset – this is the result of following up on systematic but problematic edits by ZenithTheFox, who was quite prolific before being blocked. |
| 80045134 by Harrison S @ 2020-01-24 17:04 | 1 | 2020-12-26 01:12 | Minh Nguyen | Just a heads-up that changeset 96438437 deletes way 766306007. Routers expect turn:lanes tags to extend to the intersection; otherwise, they’ll drop the tags as invalid data. turn:lanes technically represents lane movements; if you’d like to indicate where the lane markings begin and end... |
| 96404277 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-12-24 22:41 | 1 | 2020-12-24 22:51 | Minh Nguyen | The Ismaili Cultural Center (node 8258604837) was a tough one to find: they list their address incorrectly in the social distancing protocol submitted to the county and also in some (but not all) of the permit applications to the City of Milpitas.https://saesdp.sccgov.org/sdpdocs/2901694-SocialD... |
| 95730345 by Remesse @ 2020-12-12 17:23 | 1 | 2020-12-12 19:54 | ndm ♦889 | Smaller changeset would help local mappers (and be safer in case your editor crashes).Have removed the was:building outlines. |
| 2 | 2020-12-12 22:37 | DaveF ♦1,563 | After being a member for just 11 hours, deleting "tagging for the renderer" edits across multiple continents seems a little unusual. Could you give explicit details of the deletions you've made & purpose of your other amendments? | |
| 3 | 2020-12-13 02:46 | skquinn ♦804 | I agree with ndm, half the US plus a huge chunk of the Atlantic Ocean then stretching into Africa/Europe is a bit big. | |
| 4 | 2020-12-18 09:15 | Minh Nguyen | This mapper also performed a mass untagging of buildings in changeset 95721077. Quite unusual for a new mapper to be this involved in lifecycle tagging, but I suppose there’s no prohibition against opening secondary accounts, generally speaking. | |
| 95075484 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-12-01 03:01 | 1 | 2020-12-02 15:27 | user_5359 ♦19,375 | Hello! There is no necessary for writing a language code after phone:mnemonic. Because you have only number and the big ASCII letter (you can't type 1-877-XINH-ĐẸP you type always 1-877-XINH-DEP) |
| 2 | 2020-12-02 16:52 | Minh Nguyen | The store posts signs with both spellings (also on their website). I realize it’s unusual; however, mnemonics may or may not be typeable anyways. (It isn’t uncommon for a pnemonic to be too long for a phone number, for instance.) | |
| 89825418 by jokneeh @ 2020-08-24 01:31 | 1 | 2020-12-01 02:14 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for taking the time to add more detail to this parking lot. It appears that you drew each line separating a parking space as a “Parking Aisle”. In fact, a parking aisle is the roadway that you drive on to get to a parking space. If you’d like to map individual parking sp... |
| 93949497 by mtCSC @ 2020-11-11 20:00 Active block | 1 | 2020-11-29 18:50 | rschulman ♦1 | I disagree with this change. Neither Beach Drive nor Rock Creek Parkway meet the definition of a trunk road. They're either 1 or 2 lanes per direction, quite windy, and the max speed is 35 miles per hour (~55 kph). |
| 2 | 2020-11-30 19:01 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 95064080. | |
| 92997565 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-10-24 19:15 | 1 | 2020-11-29 09:22 | user_5359 ♦19,375 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/863374660: What is the meaning of this access value? |
| 2 | 2020-11-29 09:25 | Minh Nguyen | I’m pretty sure I was trying to straighten something (using the L key in iD’s Vietnamese localization), but the focus was on that text field by accident. Fixed in changeset 94976651. Thanks for the heads-up! | |
| 94935084 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-11-28 09:24 | 1 | 2020-11-28 09:25 | Minh Nguyen | The source for hazmat classes was https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/legal-truck-access/restrict-list , which is in the public domain as a work of a California state government agency. |
| 94917704 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-11-27 23:43 | 1 | 2020-11-27 23:43 | Minh Nguyen | …added traffic lights, crosswalks; upgraded tracks to cycleways |
| 94224037 by mtCSC @ 2020-11-16 19:48 Active block | 1 | 2020-11-23 05:55 | lectrician1 ♦25 | Why did you change these highways to trunk? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94224037 |
| 2 | 2020-11-26 23:55 | Minh Nguyen | Please take the time to learn more about the roads you’re editing before making changes to their classification. Recently you’ve changed several roads in the region to trunk or motorway, both of which have safety implications for routers. If these changes are motivated by wanting the ren... | |
| 3 | 2020-11-27 01:13 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | My recollection from walking along some of these (yes, really) was that the ones I'm familiar with weren't trunk. It's a while since I've stayed in Half Moon Bay mind - but the road layout doesn't look especially different now. | |
| 4 | 2020-11-30 20:17 | lectrician1 ♦25 | I have changed the roads back. See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95066629Reasoning:CA 1 should remain classified as a primary throughout its track. Yes it connects various cities similar to a roadway, however, these cities are too close together and have various speed limit change... | |
| 92965498 by mt_CSC @ 2020-10-23 18:25 Active block | 1 | 2020-11-26 02:00 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for the attention you paid to this part of the map. Changeset 94805058 changes this section of El Camino and The Alameda back to a primary road. I can see how this road might look from the air like a convenient connection between San Tomas and I-880, but I can assure you it’s anythi... |
| 68003191 by Timothy Smith @ 2019-03-10 22:29 | 1 | 2020-11-25 21:08 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I think you mistakenly assumed that the CVS drugstore had been taken over by the Whole Foods Market, but in fact it was just misplaced. The drugstore and its pharmacy are next door. (This was the time I finally gave in and mapped the pharmacy counter separately because the pharmacy counter and d... |
| 2 | 2020-11-25 21:20 | Timothy Smith ♦43 | Thanks for the update Minh | |
| 94733422 by cmɢʟee @ 2020-11-24 22:55 | 1 | 2020-11-25 06:43 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, changeset 94727436 had originally attempted to place the monolith in the valley, but using Esri imagery. The monolith’s shadow is pretty clear in Esri imagery, but that layer is offset from Bing imagery. |
| 94409132 by Figgy_c @ 2020-11-19 04:59 | 1 | 2020-11-19 08:39 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for resolving these notes. By the way, if you haven’t seen it already, the OSIP 6in layer is much crisper and better aligned than NAIP, though it isn’t quite as up to date in Southwest Ohio. Bing is reasonably up-to-date in Greater Cincinnati, but somewhere in between OSIP and NAI... |
| 90052628 by harishwr @ 2020-08-28 03:26 | 1 | 2020-11-16 07:21 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, please use an orthorectified imagery layer such as OSIP 6in when realigning roads. This bridge is straight, not crooked as in the Esri imagery. Thanks for your attention. |
| 2 | 2020-11-16 07:23 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 94184842. | |
| 3 | 2020-11-18 08:55 | naaitha ♦18 | Hi, responding on behalf of harishwr as he's unavailable due to covid.Thanks for reviewing and correcting the edit. Apologies for the wrong edit of bridge, will ensure not to repeat such errors. Looking forward to learn more from you.Regards,naaitha | |
| 4 | 2020-11-18 09:08 | Minh Nguyen | Sorry to hear about harishwr’s situation – best wishes to him, and thanks to your team for the attention you’ve lavished on this part of the map. | |
| 94093155 by ElliottPlack @ 2020-11-14 02:23 | 1 | 2020-11-17 08:26 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | This change breaks the whole world map! The Chesapeake Bay is a bay but it is still part of the sea, not an inland water area. The bay is clearly tidal, clearly part of the sea, so the natural=coastline tags have to go around it. On many maps this huge area will now not be visible as water any more,... |
| 2 | 2020-11-17 14:17 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Jochen, that sounds like an issue with the apps that consume OSM, not the data itself. There are other, larger inland water bodies that are tagged this way, like Lake Michigan, which is 3x as big as the bay. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1205149I had removed much of the Chesapeake Bay&#... | |
| 3 | 2020-11-17 14:38 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | Lake Michigan is an actual lake, not part of the sea, so it doesn't apply here.You can not just change what a tag is supposed to mean that has been around for years. Such changes break OSM. You just have to look at a map like the cycle map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=4/43.13/-94.83&... | |
| 4 | 2020-11-17 14:43 | Sparks ♦38 | The Chesapeake Bay is not part of "the sea", it is a defined area of water that is specifically delineated from an ocean. If it is not rendered appropriately, then the renderer should be fixed. Under your definition, because it is tidal, many rivers should be considered seas which isn�... | |
| 5 | 2020-11-17 15:35 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | Who are the people who have decided on this "collaborative project" - is it just the two of you, or does this have the support of the US community? Has it been discussed anywhere that has a publicly accessible archive (i.e. specifically *not* Slack)? | |
| 6 | 2020-11-17 16:33 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Some of these discussions have taken place on changesets, but mostly in the OSMUS Slack, which I thought was a fine place to have such conversations.The reason we considered this is because new users kept breaking the coastline by drawing it on arbitrary lines or one ways already covered by wate... | |
| 7 | 2020-11-17 16:44 | Sparks ♦38 | Back to the point of the matter, the Chesapeake Bay is an inland waterway and not a sea like an ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Caribbean Sea. It is vastly smaller and surrounded by land. | |
| 8 | 2020-11-17 16:56 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | Sorry, Sparks, but it doesn't matter for OSM what something "is". All that matters is that we agree on tagging, so that everybody can use the data consistently. And the agreed definition on where natural=coastline is tagged is in the wiki and has been used for a long time. You can not... | |
| 9 | 2020-11-17 16:59 | Sparks ♦38 | I'm not changing the definition of anything. I'm defining the "thing" that I am mapping. | |
| 10 | 2020-11-17 19:41 | Minh Nguyen | Is it possible to have it both ways? I realize it isn’t an exactly analogous situation, but San Francisco Bay appears to be mapped as both a bay and as a series of coastlines, and it seems to have been that way for a long time without breaking renderers and other data consumers:https://www... | |
| 11 | 2020-11-17 19:54 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | I like the idea of having it both ways. That way we could still have this relation and the level of detail around all of the water ways (instead of natural=bay points). Jochen, can you check to see how SF Bay looks on the renderer/data app you are using? I think we can reach an amicable solution for... | |
| 12 | 2020-11-17 20:50 | Sparks ♦38 | Looking at an application that uses OSM data, the SF Bay is identified as North Pacific Ocean because it is improperly mapped using coastline and only, what I suspect, has a node dropped in the middle of the area, saying that it is the Bay. That's the problem with mapping these inland waters l... | |
| 13 | 2020-11-17 20:52 | Minh Nguyen | Which application did you check? The San Francisco Bay Area relation at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9451753 includes all the coastline ways as members, so it forms a polygon. If the application represents it as a point, it’s probably calculating the centroid automatically. | |
| 14 | 2020-11-17 20:55 | Sparks ♦38 | Ahh, I see the relation, now. However, the use of coastline is still bringing in the ocean as that is what coastline is for, IMO.I'm looking at YAAC which has the side effect of pulling way identifiers from OSM data and displaying them to the user. | |
| 15 | 2020-11-17 20:55 | Minh Nguyen | (Correction: the San Francisco Bay relation, 9451753, includes ways redundant to the coastline ways, but not the coastline ways themselves. I’m unsure about the history behind that approach, but it does seem to result in a correct representation of the bay.) | |
| 16 | 2020-11-17 22:10 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Do the named ways of the relation affect how those apps display the info? See how this coastline has a name? (It was like that before I edited it yesterday) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/591823494#map=14/37.8278/-75.4774 | |
| 17 | 2020-11-17 22:15 | Minh Nguyen | The coastline ways shouldn’t be named. The name on way 591823494 seems to be an error left over from when https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57065106 introduced https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8099409 . | |
| 18 | 2020-11-18 09:35 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | I personally don't have an opinion on any tagging here except that natural=coastline should be where it used to be. If you want other tagging for naming the Bay that's fine with me. | |
| 19 | 2020-11-18 13:28 | imagico ♦70 | For reference: Previous discussion on the matter can be found onhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44837047https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-January/thread.html#15819For several years now this region has required special processing for anyone who wants to deriv... | |
| 20 | 2020-11-19 04:24 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | To all that are following this changeset, I wanted to point out that there is now an ongoing discussion in the tagging mailing list. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056310.htmlI am reviewing that, and the comments here--I haven't forgotten about this. | |
| 21 | 2020-11-21 10:38 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | The way the natural=coastline tags have been understood for the last >10 years clearly say that the coastlines tags should go around the bay. Some of the details of the discussion on the tagging mailing list do not matter for the situation here. Are you going to revert this now? | |
| 22 | 2020-11-21 15:49 | Sparks ♦38 | No. I disagree with your interpretation of coastline and can only say that it's time to fix this interpretation that you've been propagating for the last ten years. Legally, scientifically, and locally, the Bay is neither ocean nor sea. There are better ways of tagging this and that... | |
| 23 | 2020-11-21 16:06 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | You are breaking >10 years worth of software, style sheets, maps, etc. Everybody who has dependet on this definition. This is not something you can change. | |
| 24 | 2020-11-21 16:23 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | ElliotPlack, regarding the question of Slack: Slack is a private communications medium with no public archive that can be viewed by other members of the community who are not signed up to Slack. Of course mappers may use any form of private communication but if the result is a grand plan like this, ... | |
| 25 | 2020-11-21 16:31 | muralito ♦2,019 | There are users who use the coastline for rendering (although they do not have the nobility to recognize it) and they care less that the data is used to determine what is ocean and what is not, as shown by the various examples of the coastline mapped tens of kilometers within England or Germany.... | |
| 26 | 2020-11-21 16:33 | muralito ♦2,019 | The coastline sould be mapped where it should , not where it use to be, if the software is broken fix the software, but the data sould be right. | |
| 92496491 by ExoticCookie @ 2020-10-14 23:57 | 1 | 2020-11-12 21:40 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, it looks like you accidentally changed a county border to a road. It probably happened because the border goes down the middle of Fields Ertel, which was already mapped as a road. The border apparently got selected when you tried to click on the road. To avoid accidentally editing borders in the... |
| 94008245 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-11-12 16:45 | 1 | 2020-11-12 16:46 | Minh Nguyen | https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictSix/Pages/Brent-Spence-Bridge-Update.aspx tracks reopening for both the bridge and the river. |
| 34297390 by Minh Nguyen @ 2015-09-28 07:20 | 1 | 2020-09-19 06:56 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Hello Minh Nguyen, Did you use GPX tracks for this? |
| 2 | 2020-11-11 01:50 | Minh Nguyen | No, I didn’t need to because the road geometries were already in good shape. I recorded voice notes from a trip to this area and entered all the details after I got back. | |
| 93339866 by TravGW @ 2020-10-31 14:21 | 1 | 2020-11-08 19:27 | Minh Nguyen | If I’m interpreting the changeset tags correctly, you’re citing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2045889#Multiple_names as justification for listing only one name in name=* (the Spanish name). But that page doesn’t preclude the inclusion of multiple names i... |
| 93515210 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-11-04 05:17 | 1 | 2020-11-04 09:35 | Carnildo ♦905 | Please don't do huge edits like this. It's not showing up properly in any of the QA tools, so it's impossible to tell if there are any mistakes. |
| 2 | 2020-11-07 20:01 | Minh Nguyen | Sorry, I won’t do it again. If it helps, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ZQ8 returns elements that were added or changed in this changeset. A more sophisticated attic query could return deleted elements as well. | |
| 3 | 2020-11-09 02:39 | skquinn ♦804 | Agree with Carnildo here; these should be split into smaller changesets. I do appreciate the spirit of generally fixing up things across the country on Election Day, though. | |
| 4 | 2024-10-02 17:17 | Arlo James Barnes ♦100 | funny that I was about to do something similar on a local scale when I decided to see what changeset last touched a commercial area with a voting location for _this_ election cycle... | |
| 84850873 by Tym K @ 2020-05-07 19:51 | 1 | 2020-11-03 04:16 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Tym: I've just conducted an area-wide sweep, looking at boundary relations that you and others (that I've seen on the city strides leader boards) have added in recent month. As a city strides user myself, I'm excited to see you all adding expertise to the map as you find things along ... |
| 2 | 2020-11-03 17:30 | Minh Nguyen | More context about boundary=census at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dcensus#United_States . It’s important to maintain a distinction between administrative boundaries and CDPs because these boundaries are determined and used very differently.As Elliott pointed out, your... | |
| 3 | 2020-11-03 18:26 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | As an example, I just added the Mays Chapel CDP boundary using existing ways. This way changes to the roads move the boundary a bit, like if someone corrects the geometry, and you don't have a second way making a mess of the map.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93497878 | |
| 4 | 2020-11-03 20:40 | Tym K ♦7 | Elliott - thanks for your effort in explaining and fixing these. I made numerous mistakes when starting out editing; I’ve stopped working with boundaries a while ago in part because I had realized it’s too easy to get things wrong. Until your post I was still under the impression that OS... | |
| 93355484 by TheAdventurer64 @ 2020-10-31 23:45 | 1 | 2020-10-31 23:47 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, please use Maxar imagery if what you see in this area doesn’t match OSIP 6in. OSIP 6in is the most up-to-date high-resolution imagery in the area, but Bing and Maxar are more up-to-date. |
| 2 | 2020-11-01 00:31 | Minh Nguyen | Regarding the fixmes on misaligned buildings, it’s a much broader issue: back in 2009 or so, I drew many buildings in Cincinnati by tracing Yahoo! Aerial Imagery in Potlatch 1. Yahoo! imagery was already grainy at zoom level 17, and Potlatch 1 lacked a way to square the corners of an area. So ... | |
| 74400169 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-09-12 16:09 | 1 | 2020-10-31 23:32 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Could you try and make the pathways more aligned to the aerial imagery? I have been working to clean your edits up. Check your Slack DMs.Thanks,TheAdventurer64 |
| 2 | 2020-10-31 23:41 | Minh Nguyen | If you’re referring to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37511419, that way was originally added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/1785400 based on Yahoo! Aerial Imagery (grainy even at zoom level 17). Your efforts to clean up my early edits are greatly appreciated! | |
| 83388760 by BrennanDefense @ 2020-04-11 06:23 | 1 | 2020-10-31 23:07 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 93354848. |
| 91039333 by FizzyMoldRemovalCincinnati @ 2020-09-17 10:18 | 1 | 2020-10-31 16:19 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I undid this change in changeset 93343612. It looks like you meant to add a business to the map, but instead you renamed a street to the business name, which makes it impossible to locate. Please add the business at the correct location on the map so that people can find it. Thank you! |
| 92735887 by sgaraboi @ 2020-10-20 03:41 | 1 | 2020-10-29 19:03 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for cleaning up the road geometry in this area. As you do so in Ohio, please refer to the OSIP 1ft and OSIP 6in layers whenever available. The OSIP 1ft layer is not as current as OSIP 6in, but both OSIP layers are more consistently and accurately aligned than other available layers. You c... |
| 2 | 2020-10-30 09:24 | sgaraboi ♦1 | Hi,Thank you for the appreciation. Will surely follow the information provided about Ohio. Looking forward to learn more from you. Happy mapping!Regards,sgaraboi. | |
| 93032920 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-10-26 00:51 | 1 | 2020-10-28 14:16 | mueschel ♦6,567 | I don't think maxspeed and capacity tags are the right way to add old, outdated inscriptions to the database.By the way, the sign doesn't limit the number of horses galloping across the bridge! It's just forbidden to lead/drive them over the bridge. |
| 2 | 2020-10-28 15:27 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | old, outdated inscriptions - do you think that this sign lost its legal meaning? | |
| 3 | 2020-10-28 18:00 | Minh Nguyen | Certainly, there was a bit of whimsy to the city posting this sign when opening the bridge in 1983, but it is serious enough to be mapped in OSM based on what we currently know. I’ll humor you with my best understanding of the situation, though I’m by no means a lawyer, and OSM’s g... | |
| 92859741 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-10-22 02:13 | 1 | 2020-10-22 05:26 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Why did you leave the reference number on the fire station? In my opinion, that is like saying “Safeway #3794”. |
| 2 | 2020-10-24 00:00 | Minh Nguyen | Most fire stations have a reference number assigned either by the department itself or by a larger district or county. I think it’s entirely appropriate to use ref=* for that reference number.Or are you commenting on the inclusion of the number in the name? I didn’t add that. It came... | |
| 90872348 by SleveMcDichaelOH @ 2020-09-14 14:45 | 1 | 2020-10-23 02:01 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for making this golf course so detailed! https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92923787 fixes some issues with this golf course. Specifically, if it’s OK to drive a golf cart along a road, add the golf_cart=yes tag to the road instead of drawing a new golf cart path that overlaps ... |
| 92179942 by Bill47374 @ 2020-10-08 13:56 | 1 | 2020-10-21 04:46 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for indicating that there was a bogus road here. I deleted the road in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92800276 . You can select a road and delete it by pressing Ctrl+Backspace in Windows or Cmd+Delete in macOS. (You may need to zoom out a bit so the whole road is visible first.) |
| 2 | 2020-10-21 05:29 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | In the future, you can create a note for any problems you see on the map. More info here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NotesThanks,TheAdventurer64 | |
| 67602711 by betainverse @ 2019-02-27 02:26 | 1 | 2020-10-16 00:13 | Minh Nguyen | This change didn’t have the effect you probably intended. Multi-use paths in the U.S. are most commonly mapped as bike trails or walkways depending on what they’re more widely known as. iD has a separate section to indicate specifically whether pedestrians, cyclists, and horseback riders... |
| 92076556 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-10-07 03:22 | 1 | 2020-10-12 08:34 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,could you explain the key "maxspeed:relative = yes"? This seems a bit strange.Thanks! |
| 2 | 2020-10-14 07:00 | Minh Nguyen | It’s quite strange, but true: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Minh%20Nguyen/diary/394347 | |
| 3 | 2020-10-14 07:02 | Minh Nguyen | The “yes” is because the street-level imagery was just clear enough to tell that it was a relative “Weight Limits Reduced” sign, but not clear enough to see the actual percentage that the weight limit was reduced by. | |
| 4 | 2020-10-14 07:11 | mueschel ♦6,567 | The relative maxweight is strange but fine. I asked about maxspeed:relative | |
| 5 | 2020-10-14 07:16 | Minh Nguyen | Oh! That was a typo – thanks for catching it. Fixed in changeset 92454686. | |
| 92260754 by user_5359 @ 2020-10-10 02:36 | 1 | 2020-10-14 07:11 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 92454266 reverts this changeset along with changesets 92260890 and 92260895. I’ve once again restored the payment:i-pass=* key to distinguish the similarly named iPASS and I-PASS payment methods. See also this discussion: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:payment#Ambiguous... |
| 2 | 2020-10-14 15:14 | user_5359 ♦19,375 | Sorry for the wrong correction, that was my mistake. I set a mutual reference to the similar spelling in the Wiki at the corresponding keys. | |
| 91814591 by mboeringa @ 2020-10-01 09:17 | 1 | 2020-10-11 05:55 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, should the weight limit on this bridge be expressed in short tons (U.S. tons), as indicated by the maxaxleload tag on way 223438984? (If not, metric tonnes would use the “t” suffix or no suffix at all.) |
| 2 | 2020-10-11 19:11 | mboeringa ♦49 | Yes, you're right, I made a mistake here with a couple of bridges in the last few changesets. I'll correct them. It is of course metric ton here in the Netherlands, so I will remove the 'st' per Wiki for the changesets with error. | |
| 91948917 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-10-04 23:52 | 1 | 2020-10-04 23:53 | Minh Nguyen | …idges; reclassified alleys |
| 79228817 by bigmeek @ 2020-01-06 03:31 | 1 | 2020-09-26 19:48 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks, changeset 91562371 reverts some smaller segments that had also been mistagged. |
| 91255294 by MakeItBetter @ 2020-09-22 02:20 | 1 | 2020-09-22 02:38 | MikeN ♦352 | Hi, these subdivisions were not tagged as place=suburb , but instead using the suggested place=neighborhood. Why were the place tags removed? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood |
| 2 | 2020-09-22 03:02 | MakeItBetter ♦12 | A convention for subdivisions I've observed is to mark them as residential areas instead of the larger neighborhoods of a city/town to avoid confusion. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-22 11:33 | MikeN ♦352 | These subdivisions are already marked inside a landuse area and there is no ambiguity about where the place tag applies. There are many thousands of such subdivisions already tagged this way in OSM. Nodes marked as 'place' however do introduce name association in other unincorporated ... | |
| 4 | 2020-09-22 18:42 | MakeItBetter ♦12 | Planned subdivisions are very different from suburbs and neighborhoods. There is not yet a place=subdivision, and as such should forego a place marker (see apartment complex example on this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential). While there are other subdivisions lab... | |
| 5 | 2020-09-22 22:18 | Minh Nguyen | Named landuse=residential areas are the best way to map these residential developments, since they have well-defined boundaries and usually well-known names and are predominately given over to a single kind of land use.However, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say place=neighbourhood... | |
| 6 | 2020-09-23 02:09 | MikeN ♦352 | There is a mix of opinions - more discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2020-September/020621.html | |
| 7 | 2020-09-23 23:52 | MikeN ♦352 | Some OSM tags go in a direction that doesn't correspond to any usage elsewhere. For example, there is not a 1:1 translation from the US Highway Functional Classification system and the OSM highway tagging conventions. place=neighborhood seems to be such a tag. I'd recommend not removi... | |
| 8 | 2020-09-23 23:55 | MakeItBetter ♦12 | Thank you all for the discussion. I believe it could be helpful to add place=subdivision or even US versions/definitions. | |
| 91164178 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-09-20 01:46 | 1 | 2020-09-20 01:49 | Minh Nguyen | …ion from abandoned railroad; LMST is a bike route |
| 90946151 by boopington @ 2020-09-15 20:32 | 1 | 2020-09-16 14:55 | Mike Raust ♦81 | again: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=90946151 |
| 2 | 2020-09-16 22:11 | boopington ♦66 | i literally only deleted only 21 things, what now | |
| 3 | 2020-09-19 01:46 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for sprucing up this scattered set of neighborhoods in Southwestern Ohio. Note that sometimes you need to split a way before deleting it. While you were correct in identifying way 168816847 as having been reconfigured, the deletion also affected the ability to turn left from way 432841207 ont... | |
| 4 | 2020-09-19 04:54 | boopington ♦66 | Thanks. | |
| 85699709 by ppjj @ 2020-05-25 03:00 | 1 | 2020-09-15 05:12 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for making the route relation more manageable. Breaking up these massive relations means a lot to me, as someone who uses Web-based editors.Changeset 90897098 changes the Little Miami Scenic Trail back to highway=cycleway. The North Country Trail and Buckeye Trail happen to traverse the L... |
| 59500463 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-06-03 07:09 | 1 | 2020-09-12 06:36 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Hey there! I just wanted to let you know that the correctl way to tag a place that sells shave ice and boba is to use the tag cuisine=bubble_tea;shave_ice. Keep up the good work!Thanks,TheAdventurer64 |
| 2 | 2020-09-12 06:43 | Minh Nguyen | Yup, back when I added cuisine=boba here, we still had a mess of four or five equally common tags for the same thing. I later settled on cuisine=bubble_tea and documented it in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cuisine%3Dbubble_tea so I could start adding some boba chains to NSI. If you spot o... | |
| 84006806 by Freda Rocker @ 2020-04-23 14:06 | 1 | 2020-09-12 00:16 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for your attention to this part of the map. This is related to https://www.wdam.com/2020/06/08/lamar-county-intersection-be-rerouted-driver-safety/ , correct? It sounds like the changes haven’t been completed yet, so changeset 90780773 temporarily undid the changes. But please feel ... |
| 90466286 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-09-05 23:21 | 1 | 2020-09-06 08:39 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Hey there! As a mapper who has been to the Westfield Promenade a few times, along with what Wikipedia says, shouldn't the shops be tagged with disused:building=retail and something to distinguish that the buildings are planned to be demolished in the future, and have no plans to reopen? |
| 2 | 2020-09-06 08:45 | Minh Nguyen | Once the buildings are demolished, then demolished:building=* would be appropriate. But until then, the buildings are still standing, so an unprefixed building=* is correct. You could add end_date=* if you know when they plan to demolish the buildings.A lot of the shops are already tagged disuse... | |
| 3 | 2020-09-06 18:00 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Hello Minh Ngyuen,I appreciate your comment, however you didn’t mention using the tag disused:building=retail. Also, I added the old Barnes and Noble that closed here a while ago. I know some people in that area, so I’ll ask them about the businesses located here.P.S. There are... | |
| 4 | 2020-09-06 18:13 | Minh Nguyen | I don’t think disused:building=* (including disused:building=retail) is appropriate. building=* tags refer to the building’s original purpose when built, not what it’s currently used for. For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/498357508 is still building=retail despite havi... | |
| 89160941 by Dr Centerline @ 2020-08-09 18:02 | 1 | 2020-09-05 17:11 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for making these corrections. Changeset 73976526 is part of a pattern of fictional editing that multiple mappers have complained about lately in both Indiana and Ohio. |
| 89889006 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-08-25 05:04 | 1 | 2020-09-04 22:03 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | Hey there! Just wanted to let you know that amenity=fire_station should have the building=fire_station tag. Thanks! |
| 2 | 2020-09-05 06:49 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, I wasn’t aware of that tag, thanks! | |
| 3 | 2020-09-05 09:18 | TheAdventurer64 ♦107 | No problem. Anytime! | |
| 35565180 by VMeyer @ 2015-11-25 06:54 Active block | 1 | 2016-08-01 13:32 | rickmastfan67 ♦234 | I'm curious, but why did you take several established relations for highways, delete all their data, and replace it with an entirely different route? Was this done so that you could have a lower number? I know you 'recreated' the relations for those original routes, but people would... |
| 2 | 2020-09-01 01:11 | Minh Nguyen | The following listings need to be updated unless someone swaps the relations back to how they were before this changeset:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_relationshttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Route_relations/National_routesIf someone does swap the relation... | |
| 88427368 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-07-23 22:31 | 1 | 2020-08-22 22:10 | AnonymousAlligator ♦48 | Hi, you marked the parking garage here as bicycle parking. Is this a mistake? |
| 2 | 2020-08-23 00:56 | Minh Nguyen | Yes, that was by mistake. I’m using the Vietnamese localization of iD, which for some reason is showing bicycle parking ahead of car parking when searching for parking. | |
| 3 | 2020-08-23 01:04 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in changeset 89795914. | |
| 89141793 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-08-09 01:15 | 1 | 2020-08-09 01:16 | Minh Nguyen | I also used https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/11/Civic-Center-Plaza-Flagpoles-Historical-Background.pdf as a source. https://www.kqed.org/news/11787663/why-is-there-a-texas-flag-in-front-of-city-hall says this document was authored by the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Depa... |
| 68990604 by interdite @ 2019-04-08 01:36 Active block | 1 | 2019-04-08 22:21 | interdite Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2020-08-08 00:41 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 89112696 adds a couple roads that became disconnected after the deletions in this changeset. Hopefully I didn’t mess anything up further. I can only imagine the chaos that you saw here last year. 😬 | |
| 89112696 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-08-08 00:37 | 1 | 2020-08-08 00:38 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset also restores several through roads that got deleted in changeset 68990604. |
| 88269365 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-07-21 00:43 | 1 | 2020-08-03 01:58 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | Hey,for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12698692 I couldn't find a Wikidata entry for Hung Van Chu for the name:etymology:wikidata. Could you look into it and find the correct item (or just use name:etymology)?CamelCaseNick |
| 2 | 2020-08-05 15:53 | Minh Nguyen | He’s a local community activist. I was having some difficulty finding any verifiable published sources that establish his notability for inclusion in Wikidata, but I’ll keep looking. | |
| 3 | 2020-08-05 15:54 | Minh Nguyen | Oh I see, looks like autocomplete got me again. I’ll fix that. | |
| 4 | 2020-08-05 16:00 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in changeset 88991079. | |
| 87545891 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-07-05 04:21 | 1 | 2020-08-03 02:18 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | FYI at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8889285 I've moved name:etymology:wikipedia=Q6232232 to alt_name:etymology:wikidata=Q6232232. |
| 2 | 2020-08-05 15:51 | Minh Nguyen | Oops, thanks for catching that! | |
| 74094887 by MapMakerGal @ 2019-09-04 15:48 | 1 | 2020-07-15 20:43 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, do you know what flag https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6772395982 represents? It would be nice to put that information in the flag:name tag if possible. I can see most of the flag in https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/4Lpr5kDgE1x6AHatfYEPzA , but I’m not familiar enough with this region to... |
| 2 | 2020-07-15 20:48 | MapMakerGal ♦125 | I just searched for it and found this information:-http://www.ategrus.org/ecoplayas-2020/bandera-ecoplayas/-https://www.google.com/search?q=bandera+Ecoplaya&source=lmns&bih=937&biw=1920&hl=gl&ved=2ahUKEwjzitS3kNDqAhVGyxQKHeHSBR4Q_AUoAHoECAEQAA | |
| 3 | 2020-07-15 21:01 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for your quick help! Added in changeset 88051331. | |
| 4 | 2020-07-15 22:22 | MapMakerGal ♦125 | You're welcome and thanks! | |
| 87776466 by Baloo Uriza @ 2020-07-09 16:58 | 1 | 2020-07-09 17:42 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for taking care of this update. It’s very timely considering today’s Supreme Court ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4113 was unfortunate timing, but at least we’ll have something to show upfront to people who are now i... |
| 2 | 2020-07-09 19:45 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,110 | It was actually already there before but under the boundary=protected_area protect_class=24 scheme, which it was suggested that I update. I literally woke up to that ruling this morning. I suspect Oklahoma is now much smaller with three exclaves (the Pawnee triangle near Tulsa, the southwest corne... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-09 20:57 | Minh Nguyen | If I understand correctly, Oklahoma’s border can remain at its current size and overlap the reservation boundaries, the same way that Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah include areas that are formally part of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Reservation. | |
| 4 | 2020-07-09 22:18 | phidauex ♦194 | True, the reservation areas, while not subject to the criminal laws of Oklahoma, are still "in" Oklahoma from a boundaries perspective, which is similar to the other major reservations. The legal details are somewhat beyond me (and probably most people other than legal specialists), but th... | |
| 5 | 2020-09-24 02:09 | Glassman ♦5,221 | Google finally added the Cherokee Nation - and got credit. Where is ours? https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/us/cherokee-nation-reservation-google-maps-trnd/index.html | |
| 6 | 2020-09-24 02:43 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,110 | Right? Depressing. | |
| 86629499 by ppjj @ 2020-06-14 16:39 | 1 | 2020-06-16 16:25 | skorasaurus ♦215 | hi, thanks for editing and effort the NPS boundary although I had a couple questions and concerns about it: One is that the eastern area of CVNP (cuyahoga valley national park) extends into the bedford reservation; the bedford reservation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3956286 is not a p... |
| 2 | 2020-06-16 22:40 | ppjj ♦56 | Hi will,I'm using the shapefile found here at the nps website:https://irma.nps.gov/Datastore/Reference/Profile/2224545?lnv=TrueAccording to this map also produced by the NPS, those metroparks are actually within the park boundary. https://www.nps.gov/carto/hfc/carto/media/CUVAParkMa... | |
| 3 | 2020-06-22 20:27 | smathermather1 ♦1 | This looks great and cleans up so many of the issues in the area. NPS boundary for CUVA is actually pretty complicated, as park boundaries go. There is an administrative boundary, the one created by legislation, in addition to an ownership boundary, which includes fee ownership, leases, etc. held by... | |
| 4 | 2020-07-01 02:11 | Minh Nguyen | I’m so glad to see the jagged to-do boundary line I drew around Peninsula a decade ago is no more. 😀 | |
| 86284322 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-06-06 16:17 | 1 | 2020-06-06 19:24 | ppjj ♦56 | Is the mapbox layer not a real aerial photo? Just wondering |
| 2 | 2020-06-06 19:26 | Minh Nguyen | Not yet, the yellow “Black Lives Matter” was composited in for the time being while waiting for updated satellite imagery. Otherwise the muralists painted over the hoods of some parked cars. 😬 | |
| 3 | 2020-06-06 19:27 | ppjj ♦56 | Ohhh I see, it's just an overlay over the road (cars are covered by it). | |
| 4 | 2020-06-06 19:27 | ppjj ♦56 | Didn't look close enough!!😳 | |
| 5 | 2020-06-17 12:13 | trial ♦870 | Apparently according to the Wikipedia article the full quote is nowBLACK LIVES MATTER DEFUND THE POLICE, the second part not from the same artist. Splitting in 2 parts would make sense : this area is probably too big.Bing imagery seems to be real. | |
| 6 | 2020-06-19 15:46 | Minh Nguyen | There’s already a separate area for the “Defund the Police” addition to the south, which makes it easier to tag the different artist and subject information about each part. | |
| 7 | 2020-06-20 08:17 | trial ♦870 | you're right, I missed the second part. | |
| 86279726 by smeòrach @ 2020-06-06 13:18 | 1 | 2020-06-06 16:20 | Minh Nguyen | They were separate because of a turn lane at the southern end. I’ve reverted this change in changeset 86284396. |
| 83765364 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-04-19 09:11 | 1 | 2020-04-23 22:00 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | Hey,your *:wikidata tags are off. 1252239 is definitely not Q1252239 here. Did you mean Q668687?CamelCaseNick |
| 2 | 2020-04-25 17:23 | Minh Nguyen | Whoops, I accidentally copied the GNIS feature ID from way 161269489 nearby. Thanks for catching that! | |
| 75075377 by WhiteBeans @ 2019-09-30 01:23 | 1 | 2020-03-16 06:23 | Minh Nguyen | There’s another “Charleston Drive” a couple blocks to the west, off of Ames Boulevard – is that Manor Heights Drive, if this is is Charleston Drive? |
| 79491267 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-01-13 01:09 | 1 | 2020-01-19 20:55 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | Hey,I see, you have here an incorrect subject:wikidata value. Though are you sure, subject:wikidata is here better, than flag:wikidata=Q2166712?CamelCaseNick |
| 2 | 2020-01-22 09:19 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for catching that copy-pasta; fixed in changeset 79904988. | |
| 78927998 by Johnny Mapperseed @ 2019-12-27 13:43 | 1 | 2020-01-22 00:26 | Minh Nguyen | “Findlay Post Office” is the post office’s name in general, not just its local nickname. This goes for almost any USPS post office. After you upgrade a post office’s brand tags in iD, you can override the name tag in the raw tag editor. A search engine should probably know ho... |
| 73162267 by Baconcrisp @ 2019-08-08 16:02 | 1 | 2020-01-17 21:22 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed the spelling of “Phõ Láng Hạ” to “Phố Láng Hạ” in changeset 79716166. (“Phố” means an urban street.) |
| 79573716 by nw520 @ 2020-01-14 16:17 | 1 | 2020-01-17 07:14 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, it looks like this changeset introduces some flag:organisation:wikidata tags. I think it’s a great idea to link flags to the entities they represent. However, I’ve been using subject:wikidata for a similar purpose; maybe that would work better, since the flag:type can be something el... |
| 2 | 2020-01-17 09:29 | nw520 ♦157 | Hi, thanks for the pointer. I fully agree with you that subject:wikidata is a more fitting key and have changed all instances of flag:organisation:wikidata to subject:wikidata. I don't think that subject=* is mentioned on the wiki-page of flag=* so maybe adding it there could be useful. | |
| 3 | 2020-01-17 09:33 | nw520 ♦157 | Sorry, I meant flag:type=* or man_made=flagpole rather than flag=*. | |
| 79206161 by Minh Nguyen @ 2020-01-05 06:30 | 1 | 2020-01-06 21:28 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | Hey,for node 7108590349 do you mean operator:type=public instead of operator:wikidata=public?CamelCaseNick |
| 2 | 2020-01-07 19:40 | Minh Nguyen | Yes, thanks for spotting that mistake. Fixed in changeset 79308549. | |
| 72725017 by Korgi1 @ 2019-07-27 20:53 | 1 | 2020-01-07 02:21 | Minh Nguyen | Not sure what happened here, but the building ended up being an odd multipolygon relation and the tags of three POIs were mushed together onto the relation. If you see a name that contains semicolons after merging, most likely that means something went wrong and you should undo the change. If this k... |
| 77750479 by clay_c @ 2019-11-30 05:45 | 1 | 2020-01-06 08:16 | Minh Nguyen | What’s the reason for moving Amtrak to the front of the list? Is there a convention that the national service should be listed first? Previously, Caltrain had been listed first at the two stations it shares with Amtrak. Signs at these stations and roads leading to them always place Caltrain fi... |
| 2 | 2020-01-07 00:00 | clay_c ♦489 | I primarily wanted things to be uniform across stations shared by Amtrak and a local operator. I observed that most cases across the country listed Amtrak first, while Caltrain and FrontRunner had it the other way around.Suburban trains nearly always show up more often than Amtrak regardless of ... | |
| 77955737 by clay_c @ 2019-12-04 18:21 | 1 | 2019-12-06 08:28 | Carnildo ♦905 | Is this really a worthwhile thing to do? Sure, it's typographically better, but nobody's got an en-dash on their keyboard. Someone searching for "Croton-Harmon", for example, had better hope that the search engine understands that all short horizontal lines are equivalent. |
| 2 | 2019-12-06 22:11 | clay_c ♦489 | Searching for "croton-harmon" and "croton harmon" with Nominatim yields the railway station and nearby details. Looks to me like the search engine recognizes it as a word boundary. It's a punctuation character according to Unicode so that's more or less what I'd ex... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-20 20:43 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Just to confirm, this does break search. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Croton-Harmon#values does not find the value amended below.OSM tries to proceed on the "principle of least surprise", and having hyphens in names where there actually is a hyphen in the name sounds lik... | |
| 4 | 2019-12-20 21:36 | clay_c ♦489 | As far as I can tell, both Amtrak and Metro-North variably use hyphens and en-dashes in the name of Croton–Harmon station (among others). The designer in me thinks the en-dash is preferable for hyphenated station names, and the grumpy software engineer in me wants to submit issue tickets to th... | |
| 5 | 2019-12-21 11:45 | maxerickson ♦234 | Taginfo is a tool for data inspection and it shows you what you ask for https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Croton%E2%80%93Harmon#valuesIt could plausibly be extended to show "extended results", perhaps just a second list called "similar results"What I wonder is wh... | |
| 6 | 2019-12-21 12:03 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | In OSM we don't generally use the "house style" of shops etc. - we use the commonly accepted name. See for example https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=toys#values and https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pam for the former "Toys R Us" - people don't typically use some wa... | |
| 7 | 2019-12-21 12:37 | maxerickson ♦234 | The "house style" for Toys“R”Us in text is Toys“R”Us.Anyway, my point was that a prescriptive house style (or rather, an official dictionary of station names) is more or less the only way to argue that the official names use en-dash, because we can't trust ... | |
| 8 | 2019-12-21 23:09 | clay_c ♦489 | reverted here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78723287 | |
| 9 | 2019-12-21 23:13 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Thanks | |
| 10 | 2020-01-05 21:47 | Minh Nguyen | For what it’s worth, I also use en dashes in situations where a name would properly include an en dash in running text. It doesn’t particularly matter whether the sign or the agency’s house style applies proper punctuation. Longer dashes and curly quotes are usually excluded from s... | |
| 77959450 by clay_c @ 2019-12-04 20:28 | 1 | 2020-01-05 10:55 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hello clay_c,Is there a definition of railway-halt for the US that you're using anywhere? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=halt just says that this "might differ from country to country"; if there was a shared definition in use anywhere it'd be good to have it t... |
| 2 | 2020-01-05 16:27 | clay_c ♦489 | Hi Andy,I'm using the definition of a railway station without switches or crossovers, as in the German examples on the wiki. Unstaffed-ness happened to be a convenient heuristic to find such stations. I visually checked each one to see if there were switches nearby or not.Best,Clay | |
| 3 | 2020-01-05 17:27 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Thanks. Is that definition widely used in the US as well as in Germany-speaking countries? As far as I can tell it isn't in the UK, for example. | |
| 4 | 2020-01-05 19:18 | Minh Nguyen | That definition isn’t generally used in the U.S. railway=halt is used for flag stops. Some unstaffed Amtrak stations are flag stops, but for instance the Oakland-Coliseum/Airport station (OAC) is a fixed stop, about as built up as most stations along commuter rail lines. An extreme example is ... | |
| 5 | 2020-01-05 19:23 | clay_c ♦489 | I don't think people generally understand the distinction between a station and a halt in North America, unless they're railroad employees or otherwise have sufficient technical knowledge on railroad operations. I think it's inaccurate to say this definition isn't generally used ... | |
| 6 | 2020-01-05 19:34 | Minh Nguyen | What’s the rationale for making so many stations into undifferentiated halts, other than a rule on the wiki that was meant for very different countries? The distinction between fixed stops and flag stops is common among American passenger rail systems (and bus and light rail systems for that m... | |
| 7 | 2020-01-05 20:11 | clay_c ♦489 | What makes the presence of switches "arcane"? They're quite important in railroad operations and scheduling. The halts are all tagged simultaneously as public_transport=station and train=yes, which I would argue are the tags relevant to passengers.Cincinnati Union Terminal has a l... | |
| 8 | 2020-01-05 21:07 | Minh Nguyen | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dhalt primarily refers to size, the presence of a platform, and whether trains stop always or only by request. If you had instead changed these nodes to railway=halt on the basis that there’s no shelter or station building, that would’ve b... | |
| 9 | 2020-01-05 22:21 | clay_c ♦489 | Fair enough, I'm convinced. I'll keep that in mind going forward. I should probably mention that I've been mapping commuter rail stations across the Northeast according to the switchless definition. I'll follow up in a private message about what to do going forward.That said,... | |
| 77156364 by yadathot @ 2019-11-16 06:51 | 1 | 2019-12-22 22:39 | Minh Nguyen | Note that some routers assume barrier=yes is access=yes, so you also need to add access=private or access=emergency if the general public isn’t allowed to cross the barrier. |
| 2 | 2019-12-24 03:23 | yadathot ♦184 | Hi,Thanks for looking into my edit,https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier I added barrier based on this wiki page which says "A barrier which nature cannot be determined; typically only used in mapping using aerial imagery. Should be replaced by a specific value." So that a lo... | |
| 76569890 by Adamant1 @ 2019-11-04 05:39 | 1 | 2019-11-13 22:01 | UAN51 ♦15 | Volunteer responding - GNIS tags MUST be preserved! |
| 2 | 2019-11-14 08:12 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Really? Why's that? Show me anywhere in the OSM guidelines where it says GIS "MUST!Q!!!!!!@#!#$@$" be PRESERVED!!@!!!!!!. People delete them in all kinds of situations all the time (for instance with TIGER imported roads). As they are essentially useless and just make it harder for pe... | |
| 3 | 2019-11-15 11:42 | freebeer ♦1,598 | adman, calm down and lay off the methanol. unlike the 20 to 30 per day fortified added-sugar beers i've resorted to for lack of good Reinheitsgebot beverages, i'm sure it can't be good for you.TIGER roads probably do not have GNIS data. tiger was an import with a lot of question... | |
| 4 | 2019-11-17 17:08 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hello, Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Echoing freebeer's comments it'd be great if everyone could calm down a bit. Firstly, the historical tags on objects can be seen at http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=283793237 . In this case someone expolicitly added them in... | |
| 5 | 2019-11-17 21:25 | UAN51 ♦15 | Well, here's the wiki page about GNIS https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Data"The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) is the authoritative database on place names. The tags may possibly be imprecise in position, so... | |
| 6 | 2019-11-17 21:37 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Sorry for the heatedness on my side. It just seems like there's been an almost constant onslaught of people taking issue with things that aren't issues in an extremely passive aggressive manor. Which has just put me on edge. In this case use of capitals and exclamation marks in UAN51'... | |
| 7 | 2019-12-05 02:58 | Adamant1 ♦222 | A few thoughts about the GNIS thing now that I have looked into is that the only reason given for why we shouldn't delete GNIS tags is because "GNIS if possibly the only database in the US to share work from OSM." I'd say 1. In both instances of that being mentioned the sent... | |
| 8 | 2019-12-05 04:08 | MikeN ♦352 | There was some talk of exchanging GNIS updates with OSM, but once the current OSM license terms solidified, it's clear that it would not be within the OSM data license terms. | |
| 9 | 2019-12-05 05:16 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Thanks for the information. That's what I figured. | |
| 10 | 2019-12-08 00:28 | UAN51 ♦15 | Anywhere on the wiki or someplace that discuss about removal of GNIS? I'm only seeing wiki pages that says to keep them. | |
| 11 | 2019-12-08 03:00 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I don't think there has to be. The responsibility is on you to justify why the tags shouldn't be deleted. As Andy said, "If anyone has a particular reason to keep tags like "gnis:created" around then please do explain that, and link to where it was discussed with the communi... | |
| 12 | 2019-12-08 03:27 | Adamant1 ♦222 | UAN51, go to https://taghistory.raifer.tech/ and look at the tagging history for gnis:feature_id, etc. All of them where added in a single import in 2009, which contentious at the time and still is, and they have all been on a steady decline since then. The use of gnis:state_id has gone down by almo... | |
| 13 | 2019-12-08 19:21 | Minh Nguyen | The gnis:feature_id tag and its synonyms are also documented at <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:gnis:feature_id>. Unlike many other import tags, gnis:feature_id contains a stable external identifier. In that sense, it’s quite like a Wikidata QID, except that it’s the U.S. ... | |
| 14 | 2019-12-08 19:27 | Minh Nguyen | * virtually all parks in GNIS, that is | |
| 15 | 2019-12-09 00:16 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I appreciate you bringing that up. I didn't know it was an option. I have zero problem with converting them to QIDs where I can going forward. I only delete them in extremely rare cases anyway. I can't remember why I did here. I probably would have been cool with UAN51 just adding them bac... | |
| 16 | 2019-12-09 00:21 | Adamant1 ♦222 | I had actually suggested we take it to the tagging mailing list to get it clarified better, but UAN51 said not to because it was "personal" and that he didn't want other people getting involved in it. So I never did. Looking back I probably should have though. | |
| 17 | 2019-12-09 04:05 | UAN51 ♦15 | Calm down Adamant1. I'm only doing what the Wiki says. If you actually clicked and read the links I sent above, you should have seen the part where it says "he tags may possibly be imprecise in position, so GNIS-tagged features should be corrected for position and especially name, keeping ... | |
| 18 | 2019-12-09 05:47 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Obviously I read the wiki pages because I directly quoted them multiple times. Its cool though. I know the whole "well, you just must not of read it" or whatever similar argument is a pretty popular refrain on here when people are disagreed with. So, I'll give you a pass on it. We... | |
| 19 | 2019-12-09 05:54 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Hhhmm, it seems this park doesn't have a QID. Bummer. Oh well. It's not like it's in my state anyway. I don't want the locals here to go off me for editing things where I don't live anyway. "shrug." Maybe someone who cares about it and lives here can create one for... | |
| 20 | 2019-12-09 06:53 | Minh Nguyen | There’s nothing inherently wrong with contributing in an area where you don’t live or haven’t visited lately. That’s called armchair editing and I’m guiltier of it than anyone in this thread.Once you get comfortable enough with OSM, you should feel free to fix what ... | |
| 21 | 2019-12-09 07:07 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Minh, I did do a search for it on Wikidata. I thought that entry was for a different park though. My bad. Thanks for adding it. | |
| 70371984 by TimC @ 2019-05-17 19:48 | 1 | 2019-12-05 23:27 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for noting this proposed road. In the future, if the road isn’t yet open to traffic, please use the Road Closed preset.If a road is proposed and you know the specific path it’ll take, but construction hasn’t started yet, you’d manually add the highway=proposed and ... |
| 2 | 2019-12-05 23:30 | Minh Nguyen | Renderers and routers ignore the construction=* tag when highway=* is set to something other than highway=construction. | |
| 77879940 by crowens @ 2019-12-03 13:24 | 1 | 2019-12-03 13:27 | crowens ♦1 | I tried first to add a point on the highway and the road underneath it that lined up, but that incorrectly added an intersection. So instead I added a boundary line between two points that were near each other, one on the road, one on the elevated highway. Is there a different way I should do this?... |
| 2 | 2019-12-03 13:36 | crowens ♦1 | Also added https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77880658 | |
| 3 | 2019-12-03 15:52 | Minh Nguyen | What you did in this changeset is a decent workaround, but I think it shows why it’s suboptimal to make roads themselves members of a boundary relation.The alternative is to map a distinct way (which can be untagged or tagged boundary=administrative) to serve as the boundary relation&rsquo... | |
| 4 | 2019-12-03 17:00 | crowens ♦1 | Thanks! That helps a lot, I can see why it makes sense to not have them as roadways. I was completing work someone else seemed to have started. I might do the next town over, so I may change over the border along Loch Raven to be a separate way. Thanks! | |
| 77333271 by navlay @ 2019-11-20 15:13 | 1 | 2019-11-28 09:28 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for noticing the road closure. SR 133 was only closed for two days and reopened over a week ago.Does your team have a plan to promptly revisit these roads after tagging them as temporarily inaccessible based on a live-updating traffic website? If not, I’d recommend ignoring temp... |
| 2 | 2019-11-28 09:53 | Minh Nguyen | More information about this closure: https://tatetownship.org/2019/11/13/s-r-133-road-closure-nov-18-20-2019/ | |
| 3 | 2019-12-02 14:20 | navlay ♦3 | Thanks a lot Minh Nguyen for your updates. We do have a plan to revisit the closures and revert them once the construction is completed. This instance of it however showed as CLOSED TILL 11/20/2020 in https://www.ohgo.com/sw-ohio?lt=38.97542158400824&ln=-84.0511580911277&z=12&ls=construc... | |
| 4 | 2019-12-02 16:19 | Minh Nguyen | I think there may have been a mistake: changeset 77826640 affects a bridge in a different county than this changeset (SR 133 versus SR 123). I’ve already reopened SR 133 in changeset 77673713. But it’s reassuring to hear that you’re revisiting these closures. | |
| 5 | 2019-12-03 13:55 | navlay ♦3 | Thanks a lot for your update. We will be more careful going forward. Looking forward to working with you.Regards,navlay | |
| 77675199 by Minh Nguyen_cincyimport @ 2019-11-28 10:33 | 1 | 2019-11-28 10:34 | Minh Nguyen | Meant to import this using the Minh Nguyen_sjimport account. |
| 77074556 by TZLNCTV @ 2019-11-14 13:08 | 1 | 2019-11-28 08:47 | Minh Nguyen | Hi again,Changeset 77670122 undoes some of these changes, including a 500-foot-long, dead-ending driveway that you had promoted to a trunk road. Once again, please follow the on-the-ground rule, as described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability . I don’t dispu... |
| 47924804 by MightyBigDuck @ 2017-04-19 04:44 | 1 | 2019-11-19 21:02 | Minh Nguyen | This is an unofficial running route that isn’t assigned or maintained by a road, trail, or park agency. It doesn’t belong in OSM proper, but it can be overlaid on an OSM basemap in a third-party website or application, for example using umap.openstreetmap.fr. |
| 76049731 by cdm2728 @ 2019-10-22 12:56 | 1 | 2019-11-14 07:40 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for the attention you’re giving to buildings in this area. In Hamilton County, we’ve been retagging demolished buildings rather than deleting them outright, because the default imagery layer, Bing, is quite outdated. There’s a strong risk that someone will think they see ... |
| 2 | 2019-11-14 07:46 | Minh Nguyen | Speaking of Bing, I’d highly recommend switching to a different background imagery layer so you don’t waste effort mapping stuff that’s outdated. While editing, open the “Background settings” panel from the right side of the map, then switch to OSIP 6in or Maxar. Both a... | |
| 74597714 by boopington @ 2019-09-17 20:10 | 1 | 2019-11-13 05:47 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I’m not sure what all is contained in this very large changeset, but I noticed that it includes some incorrect changes in Reading, namely merging a crosswalk with a traffic light and deleting turn lanes that are important for correct router behavior. Turn lanes have been mapped very extens... |
| 2 | 2019-11-13 16:25 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, I restored several demolished:building=* ways that you deleted in this changeset. Normally it’s OK to delete a demolished building outright, but lately in the Cincinnati area, we’ve had some problems with demolished buildings being restored multiple times due to outdated Bing... | |
| 3 | 2019-11-13 23:03 | boopington ♦66 | ok thanks for the info. | |
| 76996700 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-11-13 08:01 | 1 | 2019-11-13 08:02 | Minh Nguyen | CAGIS 2019 orthophotography was a source for these changes. |
| 76868869 by daviesp12 @ 2019-11-10 13:47 | 1 | 2019-11-11 21:39 | rivermont ♦221 | Hi, is this import discussed somewhere? I can't find anything on the wiki and your source is wrong; these are not buildings. |
| 2 | 2019-11-11 21:51 | Minh Nguyen | The source tag seems to be a holdover from changeset 76867595 and previous changesets where buildings were being imported instead. | |
| 3 | 2019-11-12 08:46 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Reported to Data Working Group as undiscussed import, with unknown source, possibly a copyright violation | |
| 4 | 2019-11-13 09:37 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | To be more specific: mandatory import guidelines are at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines | |
| 5 | 2019-11-15 21:44 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | This invalid import seems now to be reverted. | |
| 6 | 2019-11-16 01:33 | freebeer ♦1,598 | yeah, wondering why some zoomlevels show remnants of green that disappeared when zooming in, leaving vast areas of white. | |
| 7 | 2019-11-16 07:49 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Caching at some level - have you tried clearing your browser cache?It may be also that tile servers are unable to deal with load and re-rendered only part of tiles. | |
| 8 | 2019-11-16 08:41 | freebeer ♦1,598 | oh yeah, i know that, mateusz ;-)i was just brought here after i opened up an half-there area in potlatch1 to see why a reasonable-looking addition to the map had been deleted, whether vandalism or not, and the `more' button opened the way history hit by this changeset. all was suddenly cl... | |
| 67083434 by Nate Wessel @ 2019-02-10 22:25 | 1 | 2019-11-10 04:27 | Minh Nguyen | Remember to add access=customers to store parking lots so the “P” icons don’t crowd out POI icons. Renderers generally give parking lot icons more prominence than POI icons when they represent public lots. |
| 73474702 by skquinn @ 2019-08-18 22:07 | 1 | 2019-11-08 19:22 | Minh Nguyen | It would be great if the brand:* tags could also be changed to disused:brand:* or was:brand:*. Otherwise, these POIs still show up in queries for the current brand, and editors like iD still treat them as having associated Wikidata items (giving them a locked-down treatment). |
| 2 | 2019-11-09 11:30 | skquinn ♦804 | Fixed in changeset 76829276, I hope. | |
| 3 | 2019-11-09 17:13 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks a bunch! | |
| 57525230 by velurib @ 2018-03-26 07:37 | 1 | 2019-11-05 01:59 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 76619419. There’s no reason a highway=motorway_link can’t connect directly to a highway=tertiary. If an intervening highway=trunk were required, there would be a trunk road at the end of every freeway off-ramp and the beginning of every freeway on-ramp.highway=t... |
| 72726522 by Korgi1 @ 2019-07-27 22:53 | 1 | 2019-11-05 01:51 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 76619187. Changeset 76619335 merges the POI to the correct building based on Bing Streetside imagery.If you don’t know which building it is, please leave the POI alone and skip the MapRoulette task instead of merging the POI into multiple buildings. POIs imported from... |
| 74350075 by Jeremilk @ 2019-09-11 11:44 | 1 | 2019-09-11 13:57 | j numminen ♦67 | Hi, did something go wrong with this edit? There are a lot of nodes with just the tag citybikes=nodee which doesn't seem right. Will you be able to fix or revert this? Thanks. |
| 2 | 2019-09-12 05:25 | Jeremilk ♦1 | Yup.. forgot to edit tag as well. | |
| 3 | 2019-09-13 16:17 | Minh Nguyen | Continued the discussion on changeset 74378574. | |
| 4 | 2019-09-14 08:27 | mmd ♦47 | This changeset should be reverted, it's a failed import attempt with broken tagging and unclear sources. | |
| 5 | 2019-10-30 03:26 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 76372508 where the changeset comment is: Reverted changeset 74350075: undiscussed import, incorrect tagging, duplicated some existing data | |
| 6 | 2019-10-30 03:29 | Minh Nguyen | (Also changeset 76372771.) | |
| 74378574 by Jeremilk @ 2019-09-12 06:16 | 1 | 2019-09-13 16:15 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, would you mind double-checking the tags you used on these bike share stations? They aren’t tagged correctly and won’t render on the map as a result. Bike share stations should be tagged like this:amenity=bicycle_rentalname=* (not station=*)network=Kaupunkipyörätne... |
| 2 | 2019-10-30 03:13 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 76372265 where the changeset comment is: Reverted changeset 74378574: undiscussed import, incorrect tagging, duplicated some existing data | |
| 3 | 2019-10-30 03:14 | Minh Nguyen | (Also changeset 76372493.) | |
| 76320537 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-29 01:47 | 1 | 2019-10-29 01:47 | Minh Nguyen | CAGIS 2019 1-foot orthoimagery was the main source for this change. |
| 74822330 by mount187 @ 2019-09-23 18:20 | 1 | 2019-10-28 08:28 | Minh Nguyen | Mapping parking lots can be useful, but please make sure to indicate access restrictions. The parking lot behind the fire station is only for emergency vehicles, so set access=no and optionally emergency=designated. |
| 74985623 by mount187 @ 2019-09-27 01:34 | 1 | 2019-10-28 08:22 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been manually reverted in changeset 76287496. Please avoid using Bing aerial imagery in future edits, because it is many years out of date; what looked sloppy was actually correct.Instead of Bing, use OSIP 6in by clicking the Map Data button on the right side of the editor. Wh... |
| 74985680 by mount187 @ 2019-09-27 01:36 | 1 | 2019-10-28 07:58 | Minh Nguyen | What’s with the firepit? Can you describe what this is in more detail? Perhaps there’s a more precise way to tag it. |
| 68086202 by Arlo James Barnes @ 2019-03-13 04:21 | 1 | 2019-10-28 05:28 | Minh Nguyen | The article was right. This is the Brotherhood Building; changeset 3410538 incorrectly gave that name to a building one block to the east, which is now demolished. Fixed in changeset 76282505. |
| 2 | 2019-10-29 23:01 | Arlo James Barnes ♦100 | Thanks for setting me straight! | |
| 76237993 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-26 08:55 | 1 | 2019-10-26 08:56 | Minh Nguyen | Disregard the last part of the changeset comment. |
| 74823007 by Timothy Smith @ 2019-09-23 18:46 | 1 | 2019-10-22 18:48 | Minh Nguyen | When micromapping a pharmacy as a point within a drugstore, try to place the pharmacy point near the drive-through window, since that’s where the pharmacy counter is usually located within the store. For the large chains like Walgreens and CVS, the drive-through window is almost always the par... |
| 2 | 2019-10-24 04:46 | Timothy Smith ♦43 | Good point. I usually try to shove it over towards the window since that's clearly where the counter is going to be. Thanks for the reminder. | |
| 75943812 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-20 04:17 | 1 | 2019-10-20 04:18 | Minh Nguyen | Also undivided a portion of Alexandria Pike that has a center turn lane down the middle. |
| 59006192 by hoream_telenav @ 2018-05-16 07:03 | 1 | 2019-10-17 17:13 | Minh Nguyen | These road names shouldn’t have been changed. The road is named “O’Fallon”. Many Irish surnames begin with “O’”. TIGER is unable to represent apostrophes, so that’s why there’s a space. I’ve re-replaced the spaces with curly apostrophes in ... |
| 2 | 2019-10-18 08:25 | hoream_telenav ♦14 | thank you for pointing this out for me, and for correcting it; I'll have that in mind for my future edits | |
| 74806803 by mount187 @ 2019-09-23 12:51 | 1 | 2019-10-06 23:13 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for all your updates in the area lately. Especially when you realign features to aerial imagery, please consider opening the Background panel in the editor’s right sidebar and choosing an alternative to Bing aerial imagery. There’s a table comparing the available imagery provi... |
| 69857339 by yadathot @ 2019-05-03 18:47 | 1 | 2019-10-06 03:25 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for catching the missing access tag. Please note that the tag should be spelled access=emergency, not access=Emergency. service=emergency_access can also be useful for renderers. |
| 2 | 2019-10-07 07:38 | yadathot ♦184 | Hi,Thanks for correcting the road according to the latest imagery. Apologies for the incorrect access tag, I shall follow the suggested tags going forward.Regards,yadathot | |
| 75256346 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-04 01:09 | 1 | 2019-10-04 01:13 | Minh Nguyen | CAGIS 2019 imagery was a source for some of these changes. |
| 75211328 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-03 06:02 | 1 | 2019-10-03 06:02 | Minh Nguyen | CAGIS 2019 imagery was a source for some of these changes. |
| 75167429 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-01 19:08 | 1 | 2019-10-01 19:08 | Minh Nguyen | CAGIS 2019 was the imagery source. |
| 75139406 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-01 09:45 | 1 | 2019-10-01 09:46 | Minh Nguyen | The source for these changes is CAGIS orthoimagery. |
| 75123326 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-10-01 00:15 | 1 | 2019-10-01 00:18 | Minh Nguyen | CAGIS imagery was also a source for this changeset. |
| 75119933 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-09-30 20:52 | 1 | 2019-09-30 20:53 | Minh Nguyen | The source for these changes is CAGIS. |
| 75086779 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-09-30 08:51 | 1 | 2019-09-30 08:51 | Minh Nguyen | Also used CAGIS 2019 orthophotography. |
| 75077898 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-09-30 04:33 | 1 | 2019-09-30 05:08 | Minh Nguyen | The source for these buildings is CAGIS 2019 orthophotography. |
| 74090335 by Saucon Support @ 2019-09-04 14:21 Active block | 1 | 2019-09-30 00:27 | Minh Nguyen | Please do not make up speed limits. This ramp has no posted legal speed limit (maxspeed), but it does have a posted advisory speed limit of 45 mph, as seen in https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tMywszjoCPjT8wasXyxYXV . Changeset 75074837 removes the 65 mph speed limit tag and replaces it with a 45 mph... |
| 2 | 2022-03-04 15:24 | Saucon Support Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2022-03-04 15:49 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hello,Can you explain a bit more about the "We have travelers" part? Are these people working for your company, or something else?Best Regards,Andy | |
| 15170947 by Minh Nguyen @ 2013-02-26 09:36 | 1 | 2019-09-10 15:02 | freebeer ♦1,598 | hoi,can you help me with the puzzle presented by https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/509583261 ?one-way seems wrong, so might you have meant a re-ordered `no' to be expanded into, oh, i dunno, no-exit, no-way-out, no-future, no-worries, or something equally negative?thanks |
| 2 | 2019-09-10 16:23 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for spotting this error. I had intended to tag it as highway=turning_circle. Most likely I used the R key (repeat) but previously mistagged another node due to an overreliance on Potlatch 2’s autocompletion suggestions. Sometimes my keystrokes got inserted out of order due to asynchrono... | |
| 73803147 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-08-27 14:55 | 1 | 2019-08-27 14:55 | Minh Nguyen | The source for the boundary changes was CAGIS: https://data.cincinnati-oh.gov/Thriving-Healthy-Neighborhoods/Cincinnati-Community-Council-Boundaries/6aci-7ivg |
| 73392688 by Harley Conerly @ 2019-08-15 21:26 | 1 | 2019-08-26 05:40 | Minh Nguyen | US 52 follows Central Parkway and Central Avenue rather than I-75, as seen in Mapillary street-level imagery dating back years and right up to a few hours ago:https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/h-IatpGTq5GIAe8bWxlquwhttps://www.mapillary.com/map/im/C0n9JFishlW1iCgKayLVQwhttps://www.mapillary.c... |
| 2 | 2019-08-26 05:41 | Minh Nguyen | (Typo: I’ve gone ahead and reverted this changeset in changeset 73733859.) | |
| 72860719 by Harley Conerly @ 2019-07-31 14:51 | 1 | 2019-08-26 04:34 | Minh Nguyen | This road already had “SR 56” in the ref tag. There’s no need for a name tag in this case. Reverted in changeset 73733044. |
| 70968470 by reportingsjr @ 2019-06-05 21:28 | 1 | 2019-08-07 19:38 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for mapping out this preserve! By the way, the OSIP 6in imagery layer is much better aligned and clearer for tracing than Bing. |
| 2 | 2019-08-07 21:49 | reportingsjr ♦6 | Thanks for the tip Minh! For what its worth I actually mostly used gps and traced the imagery just a little bit where I didn't get a chance to hike. (here is the trace I used: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/reportingsjr/traces/3007975) | |
| 3 | 2019-08-23 23:02 | Minh Nguyen | Oh that’s even better. By the way, do you know how far this preserve extends? I tried to guess based on any clear property lines I could see from aerial imagery, but I came up quite short compared to the official acreage. | |
| 4 | 2019-08-23 23:32 | reportingsjr ♦6 | I've looked in the past and unfortunately the Clermont County Auditor only provides scans of paper copies of the land surveys and a map that shows all of the parcels in an area. I can do a rough trace later today of the property you missed (it is across gaynor road, but there are no trails ther... | |
| 5 | 2019-08-24 02:48 | reportingsjr ♦6 | Ok, I expanded the size of long branch farm. Note that there is a separate area to include if you check the total size of the farm. | |
| 6 | 2019-08-24 19:22 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks! | |
| 69888588 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-05-04 20:05 | 1 | 2019-05-04 21:04 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Is it a model of road for use with bicycles? I would use highway=cycleway for such objects. |
| 2 | 2019-05-04 21:05 | Minh Nguyen | I think it’s intended for toy tricycles or something along those lines. It’s part of a playground. | |
| 3 | 2019-05-04 21:06 | Minh Nguyen | Toy cars or tricycles, rather. | |
| 4 | 2019-05-05 13:53 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | I am pretty sure that highway=footway (or maybe highway=cycleway) would describe it better.Is it something like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/traffic_park ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Traffic_Park_Oulu_2006_06_13.JPG ) ? | |
| 5 | 2019-08-23 23:22 | Minh Nguyen | It kind of does look like that from aerial imagery. However, it’s probably less rigorous in terms of traffic education, meant more for exercise. There’s also a little parking lot within it that’s cleverly patterned as a ruler. If I knew for sure that the school uses tricycles there... | |
| 65066096 by Joeveralls @ 2018-12-01 06:55 | 1 | 2019-08-23 04:12 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for your edits in the area. When aligning roads and other features, please switch the background imagery to OSIP 6in Most Current Available, which is newer, higher-resolution, and better aligned. Thanks! |
| 67664425 by glewis21 @ 2019-02-28 20:55 | 1 | 2019-03-08 10:55 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,you used some tags here that are not used in any other place. Could you explain what they mean?black walnut \ttreered bud \ttreerose hip \ttreeThanksJan |
| 2 | 2019-08-21 02:41 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in changeset 73561163. | |
| 67566162 by Josh Pearson @ 2019-02-26 00:12 | 1 | 2019-08-21 01:43 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 73560487. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67566162 |
| 2 | 2019-08-21 01:46 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I reverted this edit because it looked like you were practicing editing. It’s OK to practice editing, but please avoid saving in that case, because your test edits end up affecting the live map that everyone sees. If you’re interested in mapping schools, there are plenty of schools i... | |
| 67664405 by Dakholodenko @ 2019-02-28 20:54 | 1 | 2019-08-21 01:39 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, this is nowhere near the old CooKoo’s Coffee Shoppe on Whetsel. If the garden does exist, can you place it in a more accurate spot and also move “Broccoli” to a more suitable tag, like “crop”? Thanks! |
| 71163894 by boopington @ 2019-06-12 03:52 | 1 | 2019-08-20 23:21 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, the OSIP 6in background imagery layer is almost as up-to-date as DigitalGlobe/Maxar imagery but much higher-resolution and better aligned. |
| 73451357 by Korgi1 @ 2019-08-17 20:38 | 1 | 2019-08-17 21:21 | Minh Nguyen | Queen of Peace has a new church building; the one tagged here is actually the rectory and parish office. Fixed in changeset 73452007. |
| 72725668 by Korgi1 @ 2019-07-27 21:36 | 1 | 2019-08-17 20:58 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for cleaning up GNIS nodes, but please be careful when combining them with buildings. Most GNIS entries since 2009 have very accurate locations, but older entries’ locations are only approximate.In this case, the engine house is next door at 1654 Marlowe. You can tell from OSIP imag... |
| 2 | 2019-08-18 21:54 | Korgi1 ♦42 | My bad, it's hard to find things in the OSM imagery sometimes. Thanks for the head's up. | |
| 71218483 by debutterfly @ 2019-06-13 13:19 | 1 | 2019-08-17 05:25 | Minh Nguyen | These changes largely seem OK to me, but for the future, please note that highway tags in OSM aren’t intended to correspond one-for-one with HFCS. HFCS can be a starting point, but it would be better to look at its criteria and evaluate these roads on your own, perhaps taking those characteris... |
| 67095365 by navlay @ 2019-02-11 10:27 | 1 | 2019-08-10 06:15 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, these ways lead into a parking garage. If you were trying to resolve a validator warning about inaccessible ways, the proper fix would have been to add an amenity=parking_entrance tag to the node that connects the ways to the building.Removing the oneway tags is incorrect, because traffic is... |
| 2 | 2019-08-13 09:13 | navlay ♦3 | Hi Nguyen,Thanks for sharing the knowledge. Will include this in our edits in future.Regards,navlay | |
| 68926660 by dhaird @ 2019-04-05 15:48 | 1 | 2019-07-31 08:06 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted in changeset 72842955. Please do not replace a circular way with a single node tagged highway=turning_loop. The highway=turning_loop tag exists for mappers who don’t have the time to draw a loop, but if someone has taken the time to draw a loop, that detail sho... |
| 2 | 2019-07-31 08:58 | dhaird ♦9 | Hi Minh Nguyen,Thanks for the update. Understood the logic behind the use of turning loops. Yes for a larger circular segment, it makes better sense to add circular road segments than a turning loop. I will forward this information to my team. Looking forward to learning more from you.Regards,... | |
| 72470438 by TZLNCTV @ 2019-07-20 21:55 | 1 | 2019-07-22 23:11 | Minh Nguyen | Hi TZLNCTV, this road should not be highway=primary in its entirety. Parts of SR 28 and SR 73 certainly could be, based on connectivity, but for instance the stretch of SR 350 going through Fort Ancient isn’t even built to the usual state highway standards, and I suspect there are other proble... |
| 2 | 2019-07-23 08:01 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 72541941 reverts part of this changeset from Cuba to Leesburg. The bypass around New Vienna that you formed from township roads is nothing like what I’d expect of primary roads: they’re narrow, don’t have a double yellow line running down the middle, and at some points th... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-25 22:13 | TZLNCTV ♦7 | Hello. Apologies for the issues from this changeset, as I should have reviewed the existing data more thoroughly. My reclassifications attempt to resolve the problem I've noticed where roads between county seats are not marked as primary when they are, at least relative to those around them. As... | |
| 4 | 2019-07-28 04:29 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for taking care of reverting those changes.I’m curious about your effort to form continuous primary routes between county seats. Were your changes motivated by cartographic concerns perhaps? Or does ODOT have a program to directly connect county seats with primary roads? I know that... | |
| 5 | 2019-08-18 19:49 | TZLNCTV ♦7 | Hello. (Apologies for the extremely late response)One of the main reasons I've been adding continuous primary routes between county seats is because the county seats are almost always the largest towns in the county; additionally, they usually have the highest concentration of services (and... | |
| 68699921 by dhaird @ 2019-03-30 14:50 | 1 | 2019-07-23 23:44 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for these changes. By the way, when you’re mapping in Ohio, please consider using the OSIP 6in layer wherever it’s available. It’s more up-to-date than Mapbox imagery and at least as clear and well-aligned. |
| 2 | 2019-07-25 12:19 | dhaird ♦9 | Hi Minh Nguyen,Thanks a lot for your suggestions. Will follow this going forward and ensure the message is passed on to my team as well.Looking forward to learning more from you.Regards,Dhaird | |
| 72320147 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-07-16 19:25 | 1 | 2019-07-18 02:20 | raito ♦66 | Hi Minh Nguyen. Its name signage in Jawi is bigger, but so are a lot other shops. Also, for this restaurant specifically (looking at old photos from Mapillary), its name in Jawi is almost same colour as the background and it does not stand out. I think for most businesses, the English name is the or... |
| 2 | 2019-07-19 00:51 | Minh Nguyen | Thank you for the clarification; I’ll keep that in mind in the future. Changeset 72410107 switches the main name to Phở Hòa, including the diacritical marks. | |
| 69732445 by KotaHuddle23 @ 2019-04-30 12:35 | 1 | 2019-07-10 14:35 | Minh Nguyen | Undeleted the Anderson Township boundary in changeset 72098204. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69732445 |
| 67664298 by SiddharthN @ 2019-02-28 20:51 | 1 | 2019-07-04 23:03 | Minh Nguyen | Deleted the fictitious church in changeset 71912688. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67664298 |
| 70866594 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-06-02 21:41 | 1 | 2019-06-04 13:51 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,in general it's not a good idea to have one node for several POI - as you see you have to introduce new tags that are unlikely to be understood by any map or search engine. Could you separate the insurance and driving school nodes into two?ThanksJan |
| 2 | 2019-06-04 14:57 | Minh Nguyen | I agree with you in general, but in this case the insurance agency, bail bond agency, and driving school are all one office – a single desk in a single office, at that. The fact that there are two websites for the same business isn’t really verifiable on the ground, but I added that tag ... | |
| 68705150 by nickvet419 @ 2019-03-30 17:46 | 1 | 2019-05-25 18:40 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for helping to keep this area up to date. Unfortunately, this changeset broke several turn restrictions and turn lane data along several roads. Where turn lane tags are used, please start ramps and turn channels at the end of the turn lane. Sometimes this may result in less smooth geometr... |
| 59017168 by hoream_telenav @ 2018-05-16 12:54 | 1 | 2019-05-20 10:43 | Minh Nguyen | Please note that this change and any changes like it are incorrect. TIGER places a space after “O” because it can’t encode apostrophes, but there is always an apostrophe and no space after “O” at the beginning of Irish surnames. |
| 2 | 2019-05-20 19:31 | Minh Nguyen | More information at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#Road_names | |
| 69891225 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-05-04 22:37 | 1 | 2019-05-05 01:46 | stevea ♦304 | Nasty storm recently. I'm weathering it OK.What is your source for the lcn 11 extensions along Monterey Highway? I'm not doubting you, more like fumbling myself for a good/recent source for those data and I wasn't sure I saw it in your tagging/source comments.Though there ar... |
| 2 | 2019-05-05 15:54 | Minh Nguyen | The bike route 11 signs are visible all along the road in Mapillary imagery (going southbound) and OpenStreetCam imagery (going northbound). I used the Mapillary sign layer to more easily locate the signs, and the Mapbox layer was just on as a matter of course. (I used that layer for pinpointing cit... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-05 16:02 | Minh Nguyen | I originally didn’t intend to map bike route 11 in this changeset, but as I went looking for the “Welcome to San Jose” archway along Monterey Rd. (which sadly seems to have been taken down), I encountered the BEGIN and END signs for bike route 11 at the San José/Morgan Hill ... | |
| 4 | 2019-05-05 17:59 | stevea ♦304 | Thanks for your answer: ground-truth bolstered by Mapillary and OSC images. Wow, not only bike route signs, but BEGIN and END signs for them, too! (I'm impressed with VTA for being so complete with its signage).I don't want to sound publicly contentious, but when you say you're... | |
| 5 | 2019-05-05 19:12 | Minh Nguyen | Unlike the other routes that have been entered, route 11 is designated and signposted by the City of San José. I’ve never actually seen a VTA map that indicates route numbers; do you know where they come from?The VTA LRT maps are posted on information boards at each station, so it&r... | |
| 6 | 2019-05-05 19:13 | Minh Nguyen | Clarification: The Mountain View–Winchester line will be an O in an orange circle after BART opens, so some signs have been updated to that instead. | |
| 7 | 2019-05-05 19:33 | stevea ♦304 | I've been "watching" as VTA prepares for BART and "going to orange," but yours (above) is the first confirmation that I've seen (either on a map, not a planning map, an actual route map) that there really is an "orange" right now. So, thanks for that, I did n... | |
| 8 | 2019-05-05 19:43 | stevea ♦304 | Much has happened since 2008-9 when SCC's Countywide Bike Plan (CBP) was adopted, including a lot of work in 2016-7 to revise the CBP. I've just taken a look at that (and probably should have a year or three ago) and also find a dearth of bicycle route numbers on many of the related docum... | |
| 9 | 2019-05-09 22:57 | stevea ♦304 | I'm not sure where I got this (I sketched my understanding with a pen, leving my notes "source-less.") It was from maybe six months ago about how "orange" was being introduced into the VTA light_rail lines when BART SV arrives in the 2020s and it didn't call Orange MV-... | |
| 10 | 2019-05-10 21:27 | Minh Nguyen | https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA is from the Downtown Mountain View station. (I took it from the comfort of a second-story seat on Caltrain.) The new signage has also gone up along the 1st St. corridor, if not elsewhere, though it isn’t reflected in Mapillary or OpenStre... | |
| 59777480 by inah_telenav @ 2018-06-12 12:47 | 1 | 2019-05-01 05:05 | Minh Nguyen | The admin_level=4 tag was intended to clarify that this boundary=national_park does not, in fact, represent a national park but rather a state park. With the removal of the admin_level tag, it may be necessary to indicate its lesser importance in some other way, such as a different boundary tag. |
| 2 | 2019-05-06 09:06 | inah_telenav ♦23 | HiI modified the boundary tag to state park, but admin_level=4 is used for State, District, Territory or Commonwealth see:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_levelhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#11_admin_level_values_for_specific_countr... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-06 17:40 | Minh Nguyen | I’m not sure I understand. This is a state park, not a national park. admin_level=4 was used to clarify that the boundary is for a state park, despite the (admittedly confusing) boundary=national_park tag. The admin_level tag didn’t indicate that this *is* a state; that would require bou... | |
| 4 | 2019-05-08 10:18 | inah_telenav ♦23 | Hi,If you look at the wiki pages of national_park, protected areas, you can see that the admin_level tag dose not apply. If you want to clarify that it is a state park, the tags: governance_type=* or site_ownership=* could be applied. | |
| 5 | 2019-05-10 20:56 | Minh Nguyen | site_ownership=regional on boundary=protected_area may be workable, though it’s considerably more ambiguous than admin_level=4. It sounds like county parks would also be tagged boundary=protected_area site_ownership=regional.Since it appears that you systematically removed admin_level=4 wi... | |
| 51938697 by istvanv_telenav @ 2017-09-11 12:13 | 1 | 2019-05-10 06:24 | Minh Nguyen | There’s nothing illegal about a curly apostrophe. |
| 55655463 by oanac2_telenav @ 2018-01-22 13:54 | 1 | 2019-05-04 05:41 | Minh Nguyen | Please do not move the location of a motorway_junction as in this changeset at the 101/87 interchange. The freeway had already been mapped with turn lanes, but this changeset incorrectly moved the beginning of the ramp to before the beginning of the turn lane, effectively deleting the turn lane data... |
| 69794219 by oba510 @ 2019-05-02 08:36 | 1 | 2019-05-03 06:33 | Minh Nguyen | Yes, that’s what I meant to do. Thanks! |
| 59485625 by Adamant1 @ 2018-06-02 13:34 | 1 | 2019-04-27 04:51 | Minh Nguyen | Did the note say this road has a 15 mph speed limit? That would’ve been mistaken; the road actually has a 30 mph speed limit. I wonder if the author of the note had gotten confused with the light rail speed limits near here. |
| 2 | 2019-04-27 05:06 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Hhhmm, I think so. It could have been confusion on the persons part. I usually check the street sign overlay though. It seems to give a bunch of different speeds along this road. Like it says it's 50mph and then a couple of feet away it says 30. So it could have been my mistake. Maybe I just we... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-27 17:53 | Minh Nguyen | Unfortunately, Mapillary sign detections can be unreliable, too. In my experience, in an urban area, you end up always having to check out the actual Mapillary imagery, using the sign overlay only as a guide.I was going through speed limit sign detections in this neighborhood last night (which i... | |
| 69474153 by LukeyBear @ 2019-04-23 05:10 | 1 | 2019-04-23 17:28 | jmapb ♦404 | Why? |
| 2 | 2019-04-26 13:06 | jmapb ♦404 | Seriously though, what basis is there for moving the name label location to the town hall location for 6 different cities all across the country with vastly different geography? | |
| 3 | 2019-04-26 16:05 | Minh Nguyen | Are you sure the location of the label should be over city hall in each of these cities? In some cities, the commonly accepted center of the city is a public square or beginning of the street grid. | |
| 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 ♦304 | 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 ♦304 | 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 ♦304 | 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 | 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 ♦304 | 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 ♦304 | 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... | |
| 18980673 by KristenK @ 2013-11-18 19:04 | 1 | 2019-04-20 16:13 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,110 | This was a bad change. The only relevant roles for ways in a route relation are empty, forward and backward. The only time east, west, north or south should come up as a role is in superrelations for subrelations. |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 18:45 | Minh Nguyen | Cardinal directions as relation roles are one widespread tagging practice in the U.S., as documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States . OSRM is one example of a routing engine that makes use of those roles in guidance instructions. That said, it can some... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-24 12:01 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,110 | I really think that page was developed in a vacuum and doesn't agree with how routes are handled elsewhere in the map. Maintainability is greatly diminished by using cardinals as roles on ways instead of forward/backward and (if the relation ends on a dual carriageway on one or both ends) one ... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-24 22:30 | Minh Nguyen | That tagging style was also discussed elsewhere at the time, for instance on talk-us: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/josm-dev/2013-November/006781.html .I understand the downside you’re describing, but as it happens that page has been pretty influential, as seen in https://tagin... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-24 22:30 | Minh Nguyen | (A consensus one way or another, that is.) | |
| 69496754 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-04-23 16:51 | 1 | 2019-04-23 17:10 | Minh Nguyen | Due to an edit conflict with changeset 69492678, this changeset broke the TAH 7 route relation in many places. Changeset 69497394 fixes the route relation. |
| 60450958 by bigmeek @ 2018-07-06 01:21 | 1 | 2019-04-17 15:03 | Minh Nguyen | In general, the AA Highway should be highway=trunk, considering its importance and partial access control. |
| 69137206 by j_pon @ 2019-04-12 03:36 | 1 | 2019-04-12 05:46 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for adding more detail about this church. After drawing the building, instead of choosing “Building” from the list of presets and naming it “Church”, search for the preset named “Church”. In this case, there was already an existing POI for the church, so yo... |
| 64218231 by kmor54911 @ 2018-11-06 04:46 | 1 | 2018-11-06 10:25 | freebeer ♦1,598 | a post office is not a hospital; also one is already present here |
| 2 | 2019-04-04 14:48 | Minh Nguyen | Deleted in changeset 68885799. | |
| 66382205 by wister6813 @ 2019-01-17 03:29 | 1 | 2019-03-30 22:01 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for all your edits in the area lately! Regarding this particular change, OSM’s guidelines for classifying places is intended to apply evenly across jurisdictions, even internationally. So even though Belpre counts as a city according to Ohio law, it technically only qualifies as a p... |
| 60778970 by 217541OSM @ 2018-07-17 00:41 | 1 | 2019-03-29 23:15 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for your contributions in San José. Please use the “Golf Cartpath” preset instead of “Unclassified Road” to represent golf cart paths through a golf course. This distinction keeps routers and navigation applications from telling car drivers to drive along go... |
| 58972380 by hoream_telenav @ 2018-05-15 06:28 | 1 | 2019-01-30 22:47 | Minh Nguyen | I disagree with the road name change in this changeset. As seen in https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/4544#issuecomment-335339773, both “Cincinnati Columbus Road” and “Columbus Cincinnati Road” are signposted equally prominently depending on the direction of ... |
| 2 | 2019-01-31 06:43 | hoream_telenav ♦14 | Information is still on name:forward and name:backward; do you think both info should be added to name key? | |
| 3 | 2019-01-31 07:16 | Minh Nguyen | Yes, I think “Cincinnati Columbus Road;Columbus Cincinnati Road” would be the most appropriate name. It’s sort of like how bilingual areas will have multiple names in name, even though the name:xy tags are also tagged on the same feature. In this case, both this road and Cincinnati... | |
| 4 | 2019-03-25 01:22 | Minh Nguyen | After examining street-level imagery and researching further, I’ve determined that the name isn’t dependent on the side of the street after all. “Columbus-Cincinnati Road” (with the hyphen) is preferred by the Ohio Department of Transportation, which posts all the street name... | |
| 5 | 2019-03-25 06:05 | hoream_telenav ♦14 | Great, thank you for info and clarification. | |
| 68359896 by AlaskaDave @ 2019-03-21 03:39 | 1 | 2019-03-21 07:09 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset moved node 6338689283 from the corner of High and Jefferson to a location along the edge of the neighborhood as it replaced the node with a place=neighbourhood area. This change is problematic for two reasons: the geographic centroid of this area is not the commonly acknowledged cente... |
| 2 | 2019-03-21 09:19 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | Hi,I took the positional source from a link in the Wikipedia article cited and did not check for copyright status, thinking if it was in Wikipedia it was okay to use. I agree that it cannot be used as such given the copyright issue you raise. However, rather than revert the changeset. let me redra... | |
| 3 | 2019-03-21 09:21 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | By the way, the reason I have an interest in this area is because it's my hometown. I lived on High St near Herman and attended PS 39 for the first 10 years of my life. | |
| 4 | 2019-03-21 09:30 | Minh Nguyen | Awesome, I’m glad there are local eyes on this part of the map, especially given the online attention that https://onezero.medium.com/how-googles-bad-data-wiped-a-neighborhood-off-the-map-80c4c13f1c2b brought this neighborhood.My edits were only ever intended to be a starting point for fur... | |
| 5 | 2019-03-21 09:50 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | Haha - that very article is the reason I decided to revise the map. I left Buffalo many years ago and live in Alaska and Thailand now so I'm not a "local" in any sense of the word but I do have a continuing interest in the Buffalo area.Your idea of a boundary relation is a good on... | |
| 6 | 2019-03-25 17:44 | Giblet ♦23 | Just an FYI, the city of Buffalo has a new-ish open data program. They have a public domain file of all the neighborhoods in the city. I'm thinking this could address some of the ambiguity around boundaries. Later this week, I should have some time to bring all the neighborhoods in from the... | |
| 7 | 2019-03-26 01:00 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | That's good to know, Giblet. The boundary of the Fruit Belt is nearly the same as the one I drew however because its western boundary extends to Main Street it includes the controversial Medical Center "neighborhood" mentioned in the article. I wonder if that neighborhood has any ... | |
| 60170774 by datbrahm @ 2018-06-26 07:08 | 1 | 2019-03-18 13:24 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset removed important turn lane information. The ramp should begin where the physical separation begins, not where the lane change restriction begins. Turn restrictions should be mapped as relations, not as incorrect geometry.To the team at Amazon Logistics: if you see that a road has... |
| 2 | 2019-07-11 06:21 | datbrahm ♦23 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit and apologies for the delayed response. Thanks for the updates. We will follow your suggestions going forward while adding restrictions at ramps/turn lanes.Regards,Brahm Datt | |
| 61364082 by probell @ 2018-08-04 23:57 | 1 | 2019-03-14 04:23 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I undid part of this change in changeset 68122862. Changeset 53221067 was correct to move the Costco gas station canopy to the rear of the parking lot by the tire center. In the Bay Area, none of the available aerial imagery layers have been updated since late 2017, shortly before the gas statio... |
| 2 | 2019-03-14 04:49 | probell ♦3 | Your change looks good to me. Thanks. | |
| 62521497 by catalinad_telenav @ 2018-09-12 13:46 | 1 | 2019-03-13 04:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, I undid this change in changeset 68086436. Please be careful about keeping bus routes intact and lane counts accurate when reconfiguring intersections.In this case, I think making part of Vine two-way is preferable. Even if your router doesn’t understand maneuver relations like the one... |
| 60558006 by rawatg @ 2018-07-10 03:37 | 1 | 2019-03-11 20:25 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 68037062 replaces these nodes with barrier=block nodes. As far as I know, noexit=yes is only used by QA tools, not by routers. |
| 2 | 2019-07-10 08:05 | yaswap ♦68 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit and apologies for the delayed response. We will follow your suggestions going forward. (yaswap on behalf of rawatg as he is not an active user) | |
| 60154559 by ArminGh @ 2018-06-25 15:19 | 1 | 2019-02-28 09:24 | Minh Nguyen | Please do not replace circular roadways with highway=turning_loop nodes. highway=turning_loop is less detailed than the ways you deleted. Thank you for your attention. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/60154559 |
| 60862296 by Adamant1 @ 2018-07-19 08:41 | 1 | 2019-02-26 06:57 | Minh Nguyen | This school had been retagged as a park in changeset 51441572 – and renamed to include the word “park” – to disguise the fact that it was intended to optimize for Pokémon Go gameplay. |
| 2 | 2019-04-13 23:11 | Adamant1 ♦222 | Thanks for the comment. That seems to happen a lot since Pokemon Go doesn't support school grounds. | |
| 61641907 by larz86 @ 2018-08-14 00:03 | 1 | 2019-02-26 06:51 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for these edits. Retagged Miro Towers as a construction site in changeset 67572097. |
| 67437463 by ervinjoshuadelrosario @ 2019-02-21 17:31 | 1 | 2019-02-22 03:10 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, it looks like you’ve been very manually building up a contiguous U.S. boundary relation. You may find it more convenient to use the Ctrl+Shift+{ and Ctrl+Shift+} shortcuts in iD (⇧⌘{ and ⇧⌘} on a Mac), which jumps directly to the first or last node along a way. You can also use the... |
| 2 | 2019-03-02 10:49 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1696776 ? | |
| 60724382 by bigmeek @ 2018-07-15 04:15 | 1 | 2019-02-19 20:30 | Minh Nguyen | Note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Road_Classification hasn’t gotten much attention from the community. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Map_features is specific to Ohio and is what most of Ohio is consistent with. |
| 67149761 by jleedev @ 2019-02-13 02:59 | 1 | 2019-02-13 13:31 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks! |
| 67028964 by Sangueffusor @ 2019-02-08 15:42 | 1 | 2019-02-11 00:33 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, you may be interested in the discussion in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Indiana#SR_for_state_roads , where I’ve proposed that we standardize on the “SR” prefix for ref tags on state roads in Indiana. |
| 66946082 by jonsger_import @ 2019-02-05 22:04 | 1 | 2019-02-10 12:43 | Minh Nguyen | demolished:building=yes should be used in place of building=yes, not in addition to it. Thanks! |
| 67061454 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-02-09 23:30 | 1 | 2019-02-09 23:30 | Minh Nguyen | Also corrected tagging of channelized turn lanes. |
| 51795953 by doug_sfba @ 2017-09-07 00:20 | 1 | 2019-02-08 20:32 | Minh Nguyen | Are there any signs for the speed limits inside Creekside Village? I noticed that the speed limits are tagged as 12 km/h, but I can’t find either 12 km/h or 7½ mph speed limit signs in the complex, just “slow down” signs. |
| 2 | 2019-02-08 20:32 | Minh Nguyen | Oh, never mind, I found 15 mph speed limit signs further up the road. Fixed. | |
| 66982114 by ncflagg @ 2019-02-07 03:04 | 1 | 2019-02-07 07:25 | Carnildo ♦905 | Where are you getting these speed limits from? In my experience, freeway off-ramps almost never have speed limits, and and rapid-fire speed limit changes like you've added to Appleway are nearly as rare. |
| 2 | 2019-02-07 19:24 | ncflagg ♦1 | They're not the actual posted speed limits, as you suspect. I was testing an idea for openpilot to automatically slow down my car for stops signs. I may have broken an OSM rule or two, sorry.Is there a way to mark street signs? | |
| 3 | 2019-02-07 20:15 | Minh Nguyen | These references may be helpful:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=stophttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisoryhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer | |
| 4 | 2019-02-07 20:25 | ncflagg ♦1 | Thanks!Would setting maxspeed:advisory be kosher or does that also fall under 'Tagging for the renderer' if the signs don't actually exist? | |
| 5 | 2019-02-07 21:51 | Carnildo ♦905 | If the signs don't exist, don't tag as if they did. Advisory speeds on exit ramps are reasonably common, but I'm pretty sure exit 299 doesn't have one -- I didn't map it as having one, and I've got pretty good coverage of I-90 between Spokane and Butte. | |
| 6 | 2019-02-07 22:47 | ncflagg ♦1 | Can I not undo these changes via web browser? | |
| 7 | 2019-02-07 23:45 | Carnildo ♦905 | The easy way would be for someone to use the JOSM "revert changeset" tool. If nobody else does it first, I'll get to it in a few hours. | |
| 8 | 2019-02-08 04:49 | Carnildo ♦905 | And reverted. | |
| 66869945 by Minh Nguyen_cincyimport @ 2019-02-03 06:25 | 1 | 2019-02-03 09:22 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 66870047 where the changeset comment is: Reverted changeset 66869945: JOSM mangled the upload after a network connection error |
| 66118008 by InspireProductions @ 2019-01-08 05:43 | 1 | 2019-01-29 02:16 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for contributing your business details to OSM. Unfortunately, I had to revert this change in changeset 66723568, because you accidentally renamed 18th Avenue instead of adding your business. You can try again, but this time, please select the building that houses your business, rather tha... |
| 66723568 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-01-29 02:12 | 1 | 2019-01-29 02:14 | Minh Nguyen | This reverts changeset 66118008, which incorrectly conflated a business with the street it’s on. |
| 46690365 by zzanola10 @ 2017-03-08 19:45 | 1 | 2019-01-28 07:54 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 66696873 where the changeset comment is: Reverted changeset 46690365: Pokémon Go flora and fauna |
| 60247542 by bogdan_andrei @ 2018-06-28 12:19 | 1 | 2019-01-21 11:57 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for untangling this road and all its turn restrictions into a proper dual carriageway. That must’ve been quite tedious! Unfortunately, this changeset introduced numerous routing errors, including broken road and bus route relations, missing turn restrictions, and missing traffic lights ... |
| 2 | 2019-01-21 12:04 | bogdan_andrei ♦5 | Thank you for your updates! I'll keep in mind those aspects next time. | |
| 62443797 by Dlive22891 @ 2018-09-10 07:51 | 1 | 2019-01-18 00:54 | Minh Nguyen | The Torrey Pines subdivision doesn’t extend to all these properties. If you want to express that these adjoining properties are residential, please create a separate landuse area that isn’t named. |
| 62480116 by Dlive22891 @ 2018-09-11 09:00 | 1 | 2019-01-18 00:31 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for adding buildings and sidewalks in the area. Please remember to connect the sidewalks to the road network, for example by adding crossing ways that intersect with streets. That way, walking routers will use the sidewalks instead of avoiding them because of the extra detours around cul-... |
| 66287502 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-01-14 00:16 | 1 | 2019-01-14 03:18 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset reverts changeset 65776972 because it duplicated changeset 65776820. |
| 65776972 by Minh Nguyen_cincyimport @ 2018-12-26 08:14 | 1 | 2019-01-14 03:16 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 66287502 where the changeset comment is: |
| 2 | 2019-01-14 03:18 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset duplicated changeset 65776820, so it was reverted in changeset 66287502. | |
| 66261145 by Minh Nguyen @ 2019-01-12 21:37 | 1 | 2019-01-12 21:39 | Minh Nguyen | Also named Banklick Creek and removed it from boundary relations. |
| 63499397 by carnevalem @ 2018-10-14 04:56 | 1 | 2019-01-04 21:59 | Minh Nguyen | Note that routers assume foot=no for highway=cycleway, I suppose because bike-only cycleways are common in Europe. Fixed in changeset 66035531. |
| 65758924 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-12-25 12:07 | 1 | 2018-12-25 12:09 | Minh Nguyen | …maneuver override, athletic fields |
| 65622972 by Minh Nguyen_cincyimport @ 2018-12-19 20:43 | 1 | 2018-12-19 20:52 | Minh Nguyen | I moved a couple addresses from garages to nearby existing buildings in changeset 65623166. |
| 65522868 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-12-16 13:50 | 1 | 2018-12-17 09:13 | Minh Nguyen | I got a bit carried away here by carrying out this change across the state, rather than in the corner of the state where I usually map. I’ve written up a proposal for standardizing on the “SR” prefix here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Indiana#SR_for_state_roads |
| 63560184 by carnevalem @ 2018-10-16 02:07 | 1 | 2018-12-11 02:39 | Minh Nguyen | I’m not sure all of these should be place=suburb. German Village Historic District is definitely neighborhood-level, as are most NRHP districts.Until now, I think place=suburb had only been used for places within a place=city in Ohio, not within a place=town. I’ve always thought of p... |
| 2 | 2018-12-11 14:37 | carnevalem ♦4 | Agreed. After I made the change I realized it probably wasn't right, but I haven't been online much lately to be able to change it back. | |
| 62796809 by nstefan_telenav @ 2018-09-21 13:02 | 1 | 2018-11-20 21:17 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset incorrectly changed the name of an airport to that of one of its service roads. Fixed in changeset 64714662. |
| 62759233 by nstefan_telenav @ 2018-09-20 11:15 | 1 | 2018-11-19 08:40 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 64645689 restores the historic school POI, separating it from the turning circle. |
| 63092956 by Smart City Bhopal @ 2018-10-01 12:29 | 1 | 2018-11-18 11:10 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, thanks for your contribution to OSM. Unfortunately, you inadvertently deleted Bhopal’s city label from the map by turning it into a government office. I undid this changeset and your following two changesets in changeset 64617015 but restored the Smart City Bhopal POI in changeset 64617043... |
| 64617015 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-11-18 11:02 | 1 | 2018-11-18 11:04 | Minh Nguyen | I restored the Smart City Bhopal office POI as a separate POI in changeset 64617043. |
| 63477264 by EuleKC @ 2018-10-13 05:04 | 1 | 2018-10-23 04:47 | b-jazz ♦655 | Hi @EuleKC. If this isn't really a building, and clearly it isn't, it shouldn't be labelled as one. Maybe you are looking for a place=suburb designation instead. That would be a more appropriate tag. |
| 2 | 2018-10-25 19:46 | EuleKC ♦1 | I'm not actually sure how to tag this. It's man-made, not a naturally occurring feature. It started out as a limestone mine, but it isn't used that way any longer - the company that owns it rents space in it to other businesses, for storage and manufacturing operations.At one po... | |
| 3 | 2018-10-26 00:57 | Minh Nguyen | There are established ways of tagging underground subway stations and tunnels, but not subterranean developments in general that I know of. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/552 tracks rendering such structures in a sensible way. | |
| 4 | 2018-10-26 00:59 | Minh Nguyen | One option, by analogy with underground parking structures and natural caves, is to avoid mapping the whole structure as a building (but maybe as something else) and focus on mapping only the entrances as features in their own right. | |
| 62896281 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-09-24 22:12 | 1 | 2018-09-24 22:14 | Minh Nguyen | Añadir los códigos FIPS 6-4 en las relaciones de límites de municipios de Puerto Rico. |
| 62895570 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-09-24 21:27 | 1 | 2018-09-24 21:29 | Minh Nguyen | Independent cities have both FIPS 6-4 and FIPS 55-3 codes. This changeset only adds FIPS 6-4 codes, for consistency with other county-level administrative boundary relations. A future change that introduces FIPS 55-3 codes for all municipalities would have to figure out where the codes should go on ... |
| 38058465 by FvGordon @ 2016-03-25 09:28 | 1 | 2018-09-24 20:53 | Minh Nguyen | I think this was the remnants of a relation that originally excluded this area. It makes no sense for these neighborhoods to be simultaneously part of a city and “unincorporated”. I deleted the relation outright in changeset 62894835. |
| 59631625 by woodpeck_repair @ 2018-06-07 10:05 | 1 | 2018-09-21 18:37 | Minh Nguyen | I noticed that this reversion touched a number of address points like node 5021351015. The Vietnamese urban address format is not a great fit for the addr:* tagging scheme, so something like addr:housenumber=7/14/12/3/23 wouldn’t strike me as a bad import but rather an honest attempt at shoeho... |
| 62600997 by carnevalem @ 2018-09-15 05:19 | 1 | 2018-09-16 01:19 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks! By the way, I changed the shared driveway to service=pipestem and documented my reasoning in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems. Feel free to join that discussion or start a new one in the tagging@ mailing list. |
| 2 | 2018-09-16 03:03 | carnevalem ♦4 | No objection here, seems logical. | |
| 62453066 by lrhill @ 2018-09-10 12:47 | 1 | 2018-09-14 10:30 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, the Mapbox imagery layer has the most recent imagery in this part of Northern Kentucky. |
| 62083662 by kahrens_sjsidewalks_import @ 2018-08-28 20:03 | 1 | 2018-09-03 18:27 | Minh Nguyen | Made some corrections in changeset 62255924. If you repurpose a traffic light node on an approach into a crosswalk node, remember to treat all approaches equally and add the traffic light somewhere else within the intersection. --- Published using OSMCha: http... |
| 61703323 by kahrens_sjsidewalks_import @ 2018-08-16 05:16 | 1 | 2018-09-03 17:48 | Minh Nguyen | Made some corrections in changeset 62254954. Remember to keep crosswalks separate from traffic light nodes (in the event that traffic lights were mapped on approaches instead of at intersection nodes) and connect crosswalks to the road network. --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA ... |
| 62152701 by BigDaddy12345 @ 2018-08-30 20:12 | 1 | 2018-08-30 21:08 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 62153827. OSM is not an appropriate venue for voicing political opposition. |
| 10404969 by Minh Nguyen @ 2012-01-16 00:55 | 1 | 2018-08-26 07:39 | FreedSky ♦181 | The guidance of the Chinese OSM community is that you must use the city |
| 2 | 2018-08-27 07:11 | Minh Nguyen | Can you clarify what you mean? I didn’t change any place tags; I only added name:vi tags for features that already had place=town. | |
| 3 | 2018-08-27 07:13 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, this changeset is over six years old. If you’re seeing a major tagging problem, it could be due to a more recent change by someone else. | |
| 4 | 2018-09-04 05:21 | FreedSky ♦181 | Did not pay attention to time, there was no specification at that time. XD | |
| 62020302 by LeifRasmussen @ 2018-08-27 03:03 | 1 | 2018-08-27 04:57 | Minh Nguyen | I’m sure this change makes it a little easier to query for USPS boxes, for now at least, but as someone who consistently uses operator=United States Postal Service, I was really caught off-guard by this wide-ranging change. You gave the U.S. community about an hour and a half on a Sunday after... |
| 2 | 2018-08-29 02:11 | Peter Dobratz ♦113 | I prefer operator="United States Postal Serivce" as well instead of "USPS". Also, I delete name tags on post boxes when that information is wholly contained on the operator tag. Also, I only edit post boxes while after verifying their location. | |
| 3 | 2018-08-29 02:55 | LeifRasmussen ♦88 | I contacted the talk-us mailing list about this to change the tags back to "United States Postal Service", as well as to add operator:wikidata to all post boxes. People have mixed opinions about expanding the operator or not, with generally more support for "United States Postal Serv... | |
| 4 | 2018-08-31 22:31 | Brian@Brea ♦45 | Would it be better to use the full tag for operator= and also use the tag alt_name=USPS so when it's searched for it will still pop up? | |
| 61934167 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-08-23 21:36 | 1 | 2018-08-23 21:37 | Minh Nguyen | Technically, “Huỳnh Phi Long” is a homophonic translation, not a calque. Apologies for the mixup. |
| 61605955 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-08-13 00:45 | 1 | 2018-08-13 02:06 | carnevalem ♦4 | As of last year, there were plans to remove it: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/04/25/relic-closed-blue-ash-airport-rests-alone/100893658/ |
| 2 | 2018-08-13 04:20 | Minh Nguyen | The DigitalGlobe Standard imagery shows what looks like the beginnings of construction, so I guess it’s quite imminent if it hasn’t already happened. | |
| 60703508 by carnevalem @ 2018-07-14 02:31 | 1 | 2018-07-14 22:17 | Minh Nguyen | It’s probably best to keep landcover like natural=wood separate from the road network and other landuses, since they can often overlap with landuse=residential etc. Also, remember to map church buildings as amenity=place_of_worship, even if the church grounds are tagged landuse=religious. |
| 60701279 by carnevalem @ 2018-07-13 21:58 | 1 | 2018-07-14 04:49 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for these changes. Note that the businesses in a single strip mall building should be mapped as standalone points near the center of the business, if possible. If you’d like to map the entrances, there’s a separate preset for building entrances (which also lets you indicate which ... |
| 53030699 by nickvet419 @ 2017-10-18 06:10 | 1 | 2018-07-06 21:16 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for making these updates. Apparently some of the ways still had construction and access=no tags on them, causing routers to avoid them. Fixed in changeset 60477725. |
| 60467337 by andreis_telenav @ 2018-07-06 13:15 | 1 | 2018-07-06 17:56 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for your help with destination tagging! Please note that Ohio State Routes are tagged in the format “SR 123” rather than “OH 123”, as described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Map_features#Numbered_routes |
| 2 | 2018-07-10 05:21 | andreis_telenav ♦12 | Hello. Thanks for the feedback. I'll pay more attention next time. Best regards. | |
| 52776421 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-10-10 01:59 | 1 | 2018-05-14 11:50 | hoream_telenav ♦14 | hello, I saw that you added a conditional turn restriction based on OSC; but I can't see it; are you sure it's there? because as I can see you also have a "only_left" sign |
| 2 | 2018-05-14 16:42 | Minh Nguyen | I was referring to this image: https://openstreetcam.org/details/522233/2531/track-infoApparently I was off by one intersection; fixed in changeset 58958432. | |
| 50362820 by 3vivekb @ 2017-07-17 20:46 | 1 | 2017-07-18 05:23 | stevea ♦304 | 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. |
| 2 | 2017-07-19 21:45 | Minh Nguyen | FWIW, a software fix is being tracked in <https://github.com/opentripplanner/OpenTripPlanner/issues/2471>. | |
| 3 | 2017-07-19 21:53 | stevea ♦304 | Nice work, Minh and everybody involved! | |
| 4 | 2018-04-10 04:21 | Minh Nguyen | This change has been reverted in changeset 57958669. It’s been nine months with no traction on that OpenTripPlanner ticket. Meanwhile, OSRM would correctly tell cyclists to dismount here, but for the lack of a bicycle=dismount tag. The signs here are very clear about requiring cyclists to dism... | |
| 57612136 by mvexel @ 2018-03-28 19:51 | 1 | 2018-04-09 05:42 | Minh Nguyen | Remember to split the off-ramp from the on-ramp. Otherwise, routers will say the wrong destination for the on-ramp. Also, the ref prefix for state routes in Ohio is “SR”, not “OH”. (Fixed in changeset 57929510.) |
| 57580849 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-03-27 20:57 | 1 | 2018-03-27 20:58 | Minh Nguyen | Actually, the population and census tags previously contained the 2000 count – almost two decades out of date. |
| 54566732 by Doublec8527 @ 2017-12-12 13:44 | 1 | 2018-03-19 22:59 | jerrad ♦2 | Do not use footpaths to define a patio. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/54566732 |
| 2 | 2018-03-19 23:51 | Minh Nguyen | Hi Doublec8527, I’ve been meaning to thank you for the improvements you’ve been making around Madeira and Kenwood lately. We need more locals like you to help represent Cincinnati well. :-)A couple suggestions for future reference:• As Jerrad mentioned above, there’s a... | |
| 55934588 by Rmts2017 @ 2018-01-31 14:23 | 1 | 2018-03-17 22:55 | Minh Nguyen | Hi, Pheasant Hills isn’t a park, it’s a residential subdivision. By the way, there are plenty of parks in Loveland that could use more attention. For example, you could map swingsets or other playground equipment. |
| 56352075 by Elinorzag @ 2018-02-14 12:44 | 1 | 2018-03-04 09:51 | Minh Nguyen | Unfortunately, this edit removed the casino building from the map. Note that the entire property is already included as JACK Cincinnati Casino; this is just the main building. I’ve fixed the building as part of changeset 56866218. Please let me know if you have any questions. |
| 54536490 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-12-11 11:10 | 1 | 2017-12-12 09:36 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi!I've corrected typo highway=4, please review :https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54561252 |
| 2 | 2018-02-28 06:32 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks! iD’s raw tag editor must’ve jumped around without my realizing it. | |
| 55859067 by yuvi3000 @ 2018-01-29 13:06 | 1 | 2018-02-15 18:19 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for adding the pronunciation of this road. Note that the name:pronunciation tag is written in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to avoid ambiguity. There’s more information about this tag at <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:pronunciation>, including some links... |
| 55426018 by Minh Nguyen @ 2018-01-14 10:01 | 1 | 2018-01-14 10:17 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset comment should be: Added lane counts, turn lanes, lane change restrictions, parking aisles, sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic lights, buildings; micromapped Sharonville Community Center & nearby parks; corrected forest to woods; disconnected woods from roads |
| 55370233 by Free_Willy @ 2018-01-12 05:23 Active block | 1 | 2018-01-12 10:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hello! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o... |
| 2 | 2018-01-12 10:52 | naoliv ♦1,783 | Reverted in changeset #55376267 | |
| 55370163 by Free_Willy @ 2018-01-12 05:17 Active block | 1 | 2018-01-12 10:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hello! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o... |
| 2 | 2018-01-12 10:49 | Constable ♦1,294 | Looks like this changeset only removed objects which looked legit and messed up some roads, why did you do that? what were you trying to do?https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=55370163 | |
| 3 | 2018-01-12 10:51 | naoliv ♦1,783 | @Constable see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1703 | |
| 4 | 2018-01-12 10:52 | naoliv ♦1,783 | And for the record, it was reverted in changeset #55376267 | |
| 5 | 2018-01-12 10:53 | Constable ♦1,294 | Hi, thanks, I didn't see that. Thanks for the reverts as well! | |
| 55370218 by Free_Willy @ 2018-01-12 05:22 Active block | 1 | 2018-01-12 10:45 | Minh Nguyen | Hello! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o... |
| 2 | 2018-01-12 10:52 | naoliv ♦1,783 | Reverted in changeset #55376267 | |
| 55370195 by Free_Willy @ 2018-01-12 05:19 Active block | 1 | 2018-01-12 10:44 | Minh Nguyen | Hello! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o... |
| 2 | 2018-01-12 10:52 | naoliv ♦1,783 | Reverted in changeset #55376267 | |
| 55370139 by Free_Willy @ 2018-01-12 05:14 Active block | 1 | 2018-01-12 10:44 | Minh Nguyen | Hello! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o... |
| 2 | 2018-01-12 10:52 | naoliv ♦1,783 | Reverted in changeset #55376267 | |
| 54547607 by kbiddle @ 2017-12-11 18:46 | 1 | 2018-01-06 23:36 | Minh Nguyen | FYI, this import contained some degenerate areas:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544942627https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544945260https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545115869https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545382318https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7800945https://www.openstr... |
| 55068763 by Minh Nguyen_sjmport @ 2018-01-01 02:39 | 1 | 2018-01-01 02:40 | Minh Nguyen | Source should be San José Public Works Department, not Bing. |
| 55068494 by Minh Nguyen_sjmport @ 2018-01-01 01:51 | 1 | 2018-01-01 01:54 | Minh Nguyen | Plugged several gaps in the imported data around street corners and where walkways through apartment complexes met sidewalks on public streets. Added noexit=yes, barrier=wall where appropriate to satisfy near-but-not-connected validator. Deleted a sidewalk segment that was actually a hedge. |
| 54573781 by TheTrevosaurus @ 2017-12-12 18:12 | 1 | 2017-12-27 22:55 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for your recent contributions to the map along Beechmont! Regarding the area you mapped as “Current site of Dewey's Pizza and Silver Ladle”: the default aerial imagery from Bing is a bit outdated, as you’ve noticed, but you can click the Backgrounds button on the right ... |
| 54613828 by IcyMidnight @ 2017-12-14 03:59 | 1 | 2017-12-15 17:00 | 3vivekb ♦61 | I don't know this area, but would say there is only one real path here? Is the bike and pedestrian path separte? Maybe we should just add bike tags to the existing path. |
| 2 | 2017-12-15 20:14 | IcyMidnight ♦4 | They are right next to each other without any barriers, but there is a pedestrian lane and a cycle lane. I wasn't sure how to represent that so I did this. If you think the other way is better you can change it and I won't be offended :)Here's a picture for reference: https://i.im... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-15 21:03 | Minh Nguyen | Since there’s no physical separation, a single way would be more accurate. But you could use bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes tags to say which side to walk or bike on. | |
| 4 | 2017-12-15 21:05 | Minh Nguyen | And colour:lanes while we’re at it. :-P There’s more information about lane-specific tags at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes | |
| 5 | 2017-12-16 02:23 | IcyMidnight ♦4 | Made the changes you suggested. Thanks! | |
| 54525819 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-12-11 00:41 | 1 | 2017-12-11 00:44 | Minh Nguyen | …updated buildings |
| 2 | 2017-12-11 00:45 | Minh Nguyen | Also, this changeset moves the beginning of many turn:lanes tags to where the turn lane begins to be demarcated, as opposed to where the road only begins to widen. | |
| 20026510 by kort-to-osm @ 2014-01-16 02:47 | 1 | 2017-12-03 13:25 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset introduced a speed limit expressed in miles per hour without an explicit unit, so it was interpreted as kilometers per hour. Fixed in changeset 54297467. |
| 54149834 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-11-28 13:55 | 1 | 2017-12-01 10:46 | mueschel ♦6,567 | I found many tags like these in your edits:change:forward_1turn:lanes:backward_1turn:lanes:forward_1turn:lanes:both_ways_1Please watch out for correct tags, especially correct use of :forward and :backward! |
| 2 | 2017-12-01 10:50 | Minh Nguyen | Yikes, sorry about that! I’ve been manually entering these in iD, and unfortunately, iD silently adds the _1 instead of forcing me to notice the existing tag. I’ll double-check my edits for this error in the future. Thanks for noticing! | |
| 3 | 2017-12-01 10:59 | Minh Nguyen | https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/3625 | |
| 53271330 by Robin Daugherty @ 2017-10-26 18:52 | 1 | 2017-11-30 17:00 | Minh Nguyen | I made a few corrections in changeset 54210692. Of note, it isn’t necessary to collapse a segregated intersection (such as at Red Bank and Duck Creek) down into one highway=traffic_signals node; mainstream routers are capable of treating it as one intersection despite having multiple intersect... |
| 53852954 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-11-16 19:23 | 1 | 2017-11-16 19:26 | Minh Nguyen | Also added emergency crossovers, advisory speed limits, height restrictions, and hazardous cargo designations. |
| 53722602 by Minh Nguyen_sjmport @ 2017-11-12 20:06 | 1 | 2017-11-12 20:09 | Minh Nguyen | Stale changeset comment. The real comment should’ve been: Added sidewalks #osmus-project-127 #c4sj #South-Bay-OSM |
| 49539804 by ridixcr @ 2017-06-14 20:05 | 1 | 2017-11-12 01:54 | Minh Nguyen | Rushville doesn’t meet the criteria for place=city. Based on its population, it should be place=village, though place=town is better since it’s a county seat and thus is more prominent than any other place in the county. I demoted the POI in changeset 53703346. |
| 2 | 2017-11-15 19:32 | ridixcr ♦87 | Hi Minh!Thank you so much for the correction.Have a nice day. | |
| 53638943 by mvexel @ 2017-11-09 13:13 | 1 | 2017-11-10 10:05 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for this edit! I followed up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53662264 with a couple corrections. Let me know if you have any questions. |
| 53209008 by TheBestIdea @ 2017-10-24 13:48 | 1 | 2017-11-06 06:38 | manings ♦209 | You added a turn restriction on a cycle route. Curious if this is valid: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7677436/historyKeep on mapping. |
| 2 | 2017-11-08 15:38 | TheBestIdea ♦110 | It is. Pavement markings indicate that north-bound bikers must make right turn onto S 4th St. You can see it on page 15 of the pdf linked below, and I've confirmed it in person. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/williamsburg-bridge-bike-access-cb1-mar2017.pdf | |
| 3 | 2017-11-08 18:30 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for your diligence. FYI, as long as South 5th Place is tagged bicycle=yes, routers will be inclined to make the left turn anyways, except using the roadway instead of the bike path: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_bicycle&route=40.71054%2C-73.96142%3B40.71112%2C-73.... | |
| 52139291 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-09-18 09:59 | 1 | 2017-09-18 10:07 | Minh Nguyen | The newest aerial imagery available was Bing from a year ago, so I reached out to Niederman Family Farm on Facebook asking permission to use <https://nebula.wsimg.com/01699009e4320ed6fb661a0d4f3de60e?AccessKeyId=870A82DEF36C14F24C71> (from their homepage) as a source, and they agreed. |
| 2 | 2017-09-20 17:26 | Harald Hartmann ♦827 | Hello Minh Nguyen. At http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474098021 you have used `xxx:disused` instead of `disused:xxx`. Please have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix #newkey | |
| 3 | 2017-10-20 08:36 | Minh Nguyen | Ah, I always mix that up. Thanks for the reminder. | |
| 52976807 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-10-16 09:42 | 1 | 2017-10-16 17:39 | Minh Nguyen | Cross Country Roads was a source for this changeset. |
| 52968215 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-10-15 22:37 | 1 | 2017-10-15 22:38 | Minh Nguyen | Cross Country Roads was a source for this changeset. |
| 52967979 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-10-15 22:23 | 1 | 2017-10-15 22:23 | Minh Nguyen | Cross Country Roads was a source for some of these destinations. |
| 49640101 by Nick543 @ 2017-06-18 17:46 | 1 | 2017-06-19 05:23 | oormilavinod ♦309 | hey Nick543 , welcome to OSM i have observed that you have added parks at that does not exists in reality. please make sure that you don't add such random edits to the map. i have reverted the changeset. happy mapping!!! |
| 2 | 2017-10-07 22:41 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 49640101. | |
| 3 | 2017-10-07 22:41 | Minh Nguyen | Reverted in changeset 52719120, rather. | |
| 52583476 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-10-03 04:09 | 1 | 2017-10-06 10:17 | Harald Hartmann ♦827 | Hello Minh Nguyen. Athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18969870 you have tagged`destination:pronuncation` instead of`destination:pronunciation`, right? #typo |
| 2 | 2017-10-06 10:20 | Minh Nguyen | Good catch, thank you! Fixed in changeset 52678656. | |
| 52312743 by ddchambers @ 2017-09-23 19:39 | 1 | 2017-10-01 04:01 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52526189 where the changeset comment is: Reverted changeset 52312743: imported geometries appear to be shifted by a significant distance |
| 52316722 by d_allie @ 2017-09-23 23:05 | 1 | 2017-09-30 21:28 | Minh Nguyen | By the way, according to http://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/127, the intention was for you to replace “YOUR COMMENTS” without your own comments about what you’ve done for this task, for example “Imported sidewalks and connected them to existing roads”. |
| 52315777 by Anju Mercian @ 2017-09-23 22:05 | 1 | 2017-09-27 03:00 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52401591 where the changeset comment is: Reverted changeset 52315777: accidental duplication of every feature in this area #osmus-project-127 #c4sj #South-Bay-OSM |
| 2 | 2017-09-27 03:27 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset duplicated every feature in the area. I’ve reverted this changeset in changeset 52401591. | |
| 3 | 2017-09-27 05:18 | Minh Nguyen | Changeset 52402863 cleaned up a few more duplicate features. | |
| 52401591 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-09-27 02:46 | 1 | 2017-09-27 05:18 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset missed a few duplicate features that had gotten joined to preexisting features in changeset 52372799. The remaining duplicate features were removed in changeset 52402863. |
| 52313882 by Anju Mercian @ 2017-09-23 20:28 | 1 | 2017-09-27 04:08 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52402022 where the changeset comment is: Reverted changeset 52313882: accidental duplication of every feature in this area #osmus-project-127 #c4sj #South-Bay-OSM |
| 2 | 2017-09-27 05:11 | Minh Nguyen | Some of changeset 52313882 was omitted from this reversion due to intervening edits; these ways were deleted in changeset 52402863. | |
| 52402022 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-09-27 03:33 | 1 | 2017-09-27 05:11 | Minh Nguyen | Some of changeset 52313882 was omitted from this reversion due to intervening edits; these ways were deleted in changeset 52402863. |
| 30915777 by yapple @ 2015-05-08 17:14 | 1 | 2015-07-08 16:35 | StellanL ♦11 | Unfortunately, a database cannot choose to not take something seriously. All changes in OpenStreetMap are seen by all users. Please head over to Opengeofiction if you want to draw fictional maps or use dev.osm.org for playing around. |
| 2 | 2017-09-24 21:12 | Minh Nguyen | I reverted the rest of yapple’s edits in changeset 52335717. | |
| 49513049 by pflier @ 2017-06-13 21:52 | 1 | 2017-06-14 09:42 | Minh Nguyen | Thanks for your contributions! As you add stoplines, please remember to connect them to the roadways, as that would be more topologically correct.In fact, since most roadways in OSM are modeled as lines rather than areas, most existing software prefers that stopping positions be mapped as [highw... |
| 2 | 2017-09-24 06:51 | GerdP ♦2,751 | A typical problem with this approach is here:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/500770256The stop line is now part of the sidewalk (and still not part of the major road)I don't think that a way with highway=stopline is any better than a node on the road with highway=stop.It is nearly use... | |
| 3 | 2017-09-24 06:56 | Minh Nguyen | There’s some additional discussion about this stopline mapping effort in the thread starting at <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-September/017821.html>. | |
| 4 | 2017-09-24 07:36 | GerdP ♦2,751 | @Minh Nguyen : Thanks for the link.I noticed that the number of ways with highway=stopline decreased from ~17500 to < 11000 during the last days. Not sure why. | |
| 5 | 2017-09-24 07:52 | Minh Nguyen | pflier is retagging highway=stopline to road_marking=solid_stop_line at the suggestion of those on the talk-us thread. I welcome this change, and I agree with GerdP that the ways should be connected to the roads they intersect. | |
| 52315310 by Anju Mercian @ 2017-09-23 21:36 | 1 | 2017-09-23 23:13 | Minh Nguyen | This changeset inadvertently duplicated most features in downtown San José. Reverted in changesets 52315977 and 52316818. Everything appears to be back to normal. 👍 |
| 52160098 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-09-19 01:47 | 1 | 2017-09-19 01:57 | Minh Nguyen | Typo: that should’ve been Almaden, not, “Los Amaden”, in the changeset comment. |
| 52130591 by doug_sfba @ 2017-09-18 03:03 | 1 | 2017-09-18 23:50 | Minh Nguyen | Hi Doug, note that the maxspeed tag is in kilometers per hour by default. If you want to express a speed limit in miles per hour, please indicate the unit, e.g., maxspeed=25 mph. Thanks! |
| 52128996 by Minh Nguyen @ 2017-09-17 23:33 | 1 | 2017-09-17 23:41 | Minh Nguyen | Since the available imagery providers are years out of date, I used <https://www.facebook.com/WendelFarms/photos/a.602837743081207.1073741829.602316163133365/1662595113772126/?type=3&theater> as the source for this changeset. Before starting this changeset, I contacted Wendel Farms on Face... |
| 50955144 by Edward F @ 2017-08-08 21:23 | 1 | 2017-08-09 00:00 | Minh Nguyen | Hi Edward, thanks for your contributions to OSM! Always happy to see more Cincinnatians around here. :-)I noticed that you added a driveway but connected it to a power line. Since the two features aren’t connected in reality, please avoid connecting them to OSM. If you make an accidental c... |
| 2 | 2017-08-31 05:24 | Minh Nguyen | Fixed in changeset 51598525. | |
| 14303214 by stevea @ 2012-12-17 08:48 | 1 | 2017-07-04 21:05 | Minh 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... |
| 2 | 2017-07-05 08:49 | stevea ♦304 | 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 | 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 ♦304 | 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 | 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 | 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 ♦304 | Thanks for the detailed explanation, Minh, though I believe you walk a very fine line here. | |
| 49776093 by e pt @ 2017-06-23 16:55 Active block | 1 | 2017-06-28 22:37 | Minh Nguyen | Phase II of the BART Silicon Valley project has not yet begun construction. In fact, funding hasn’t even been fully secured for it yet. |
| 2 | 2017-06-28 22:41 | Minh Nguyen | Construction won’t begin until late 2018: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/01/23/are-you-ready-for-a-subway-digging-for-bart-begins.htmlReverted in changeset 49904054. Please let me know if you have any questions. |