| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52993291 by bigGREEZY | 1 | 2017-10-16 21:55:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52996686 where the changeset comment is: Park geometry definitely is nonsensical, description also odd, moved lakeshore node |
| 52993095 by bigGREEZY | 1 | 2017-10-16 20:06:53 UTC | Paul Johnson | Kinda looks like the park outline you added doesn't line up with the landuse. What's with that description? Kind of looks like ad copy. |
| 52914677 by wishwashing | 1 | 2017-10-14 21:40:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | Looks like you removed a couple valid turning circles. Also, additionally, are those paths open to bicycles as well? If so, footway isn't the correct tag, highway=path would be. Sidewalks are a grey area, highway=footway, footway=sidewalk is the right tags for a sidewalk, and additionally bicycle... |
| 2 | 2017-10-16 15:22:34 UTC | wishwashing | Thanks for the comment! The OSM wiki article for turning circles says they are "located at the ends of cul-de-sacs (dead end streets, etc)." Since those areas are not at the ends of streets, I'm not sure if they should be tagged as turning circles or something else. Also: I've updated the ... | |
| 52740352 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2017-10-08 21:13:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52742064 where the changeset comment is: |
| 52526015 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2017-10-06 08:04:27 UTC | Harald Hartmann | Hello Paul Johnson. Athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52525012you have tagged the misspelled`bicycle:laens:forward=designated` and`bicycle:lanes:forward=designated`, right? |
| 2 | 2017-10-06 14:21:57 UTC | Paul Johnson | Well, not intentionally. Whoops! | |
| 52343699 by dtrent55 | 1 | 2017-09-28 03:24:52 UTC | Paul Johnson | Thanks for the contribution! Please avoid using abbreviations in the name=* field when possible for best results. |
| 2 | 2017-09-28 03:25:21 UTC | Paul Johnson | The lanes=* tag also isn't applicable if the lanes aren't marked on the pavement as like on neighborhood streets. | |
| 52366047 by Theoketos333 | 1 | 2017-09-26 15:42:46 UTC | Paul Johnson | If this is just a generic path that bicycles can also use, it should be highway=path. |
| 52073072 by Zowie Polie | 1 | 2017-09-16 03:48:23 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm probably going to be reverting this changeset as it has appeared to have removed major streets in Guymon, and broken the relations for OK 3, US 54, US 64, and US 412 simultaneously. |
| 2 | 2017-09-16 04:09:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52085816 where the changeset comment is: | |
| 3 | 2017-09-16 04:21:05 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK, was able to get that rolled back; sorry if I undid anything you might have done in the process, losing connectivity to four cross-state highways was pretty noticeable. I'm not mad or anything, but I do ask for a little more care when deleting features. | |
| 4 | 2017-10-03 00:04:43 UTC | woodpeck | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie | |
| 34958064 by Sundance | 1 | 2017-08-16 04:05:22 UTC | Paul Johnson | refs are not names. |
| 44775301 by aboges26 | 1 | 2017-08-12 19:10:03 UTC | Paul Johnson | Seeing a lot, lot of ways in this changeset that were improperly upgraded to trunk when they're not semi-limited expressways...single carriageways only accessible via ramps or dual carriageways with limited surface intersections would be trunks. |
| 49928305 by PariahDog | 1 | 2017-07-11 13:30:38 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is this a multiuse path, or just a hiking trail? If it's the former, should be highway=path instead. If it's striped out as a bike path, then highway=cycleway instead. |
| 49973526 by FTA_dwg | 1 | 2017-07-05 16:44:24 UTC | Paul Johnson | I think official_name should be name and the current name should be old_name or alt_name. |
| 2 | 2017-07-06 21:18:16 UTC | Paul Johnson | This still isn't correct, the road's name is for all practical purposes, Liberty Parkway. | |
| 49784325 by XenonYoshi | 1 | 2017-06-24 15:20:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | Names are not refs. And in some cases it appears that you have actually replaced a valid name with a ref on US 56, even though the name is cited. We should probably revert this... |
| 2 | 2017-06-24 16:08:34 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK, left the geometry you provided, did reset the names | |
| 3 | 2017-07-02 19:46:20 UTC | XenonYoshi | My apologies and thanks for reverting it | |
| 48386392 by nyuriks | 1 | 2017-06-12 16:01:40 UTC | Paul Johnson | Village boundary? I don't follow what's going on here... |
| 2 | 2017-06-12 19:17:27 UTC | nyuriks | @paul, I simply added wikidata tag for the corresponding wikipedia tag. Are there any problems with the data? https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=48386392 | |
| 3 | 2017-06-20 11:45:40 UTC | Paul Johnson | Does OSU count as it's own village? | |
| 49562133 by calmlava | 1 | 2017-06-15 14:05:37 UTC | Paul Johnson | Unless bicycles are not allowed or not discouraged (as is the case with sidewalks), it should be highway=path |
| 49496945 by woodpeck_repair | 1 | 2017-06-13 12:51:45 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is this in regards to the DACGroup edits? |
| 2 | 2017-06-13 13:55:58 UTC | woodpeck | Yes, the bulk was deleted in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49484818 but some that had been edited by other people remained; it turned out that those edited by others were mostly still useless and they were then deleted in this changeset. | |
| 3 | 2017-06-13 14:37:34 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK. Were any of those in Oklahoma east of I 35? I know I worked on conflating some of those with existing data. | |
| 4 | 2017-06-14 11:27:38 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK, I think this might have been overzealous. I see this removed Node: 4897994740, which I had fixed. | |
| 5 | 2017-06-14 11:48:50 UTC | woodpeck | I did a spot-check of some of the "fixed" objects and found that in many cases, only a part of the original problem had been repaired - sometimes a tag was fixed but the location was still in the middle of the road, or vice versa. In your particular example, you did fix the amenity tag but... | |
| 49282330 by DAC Rochester | 1 | 2017-06-12 22:30:26 UTC | Paul Johnson | This is obviously in a neighborhood. |
| 2 | 2017-06-12 22:32:12 UTC | Paul Johnson | Moved it to approximately the correct location based on surrounding addresses. Please check your tagging. | |
| 49281498 by DAC Rochester | 1 | 2017-06-12 22:19:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | Killing me here...this node wasn't even over the correct store. Opening hours is also formatted incorrectly, and phone numbers missing the seperators... don't use abbreviations... |
| 2 | 2017-06-12 22:19:32 UTC | Paul Johnson | loc_name is also unnecessary. | |
| 3 | 2017-06-12 22:20:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | amenity=Furniture Store isn't a thing. shop=furniture is. | |
| 49281460 by DAC Rochester | 1 | 2017-06-12 22:01:41 UTC | Paul Johnson | This one, too... kinda feeling like you might want to hire someone actually experienced in dealing with OpenStreetMap. |
| 49281132 by DAC Rochester | 1 | 2017-06-12 21:45:13 UTC | Paul Johnson | You may want to review the tagging conventions. I've fixed this one but maybe check to see if the object exists first, and don't invent new tags like amenity=Family Restaurant and using abbreviations like Ave and NW... |
| 49464636 by Fluous | 1 | 2017-06-12 11:51:51 UTC | Paul Johnson | Could we get a more descriptive summary in the changeset titles? |
| 2 | 2017-06-12 18:35:08 UTC | Fluous | Sure. This one was mostly about adding parking lots, sidewalks, service roads into parking lots, etc. Stuff that isn't already on the map. | |
| 49227363 by jblagg | 1 | 2017-06-04 06:52:51 UTC | Paul Johnson | I see a new development there on Mapbox imagery, but this doesn't line up with that. If you have local knowledge of the area, would you take another look? |
| 49177227 by RetroGameBoy | 1 | 2017-06-03 02:36:27 UTC | Paul Johnson | This changeset should be reverted, those gas bars are definitely there. |
| 2 | 2017-06-03 02:53:36 UTC | RetroGameBoy | All I saw was three points stating QuikTrip and its address as well as it being a convenience store... Obviously I need to educate myself more and will be taking a long break. I am sorry, I should not have treaded on anyone else's work. | |
| 3 | 2017-06-03 04:18:38 UTC | Paul Johnson | Don't sweat it, mistakes happen, I make 'em regularly. Don't give up, we all gain experience with time! | |
| 4 | 2017-06-03 04:19:07 UTC | Paul Johnson | Heck, I see now I screwed up adding a Sprouts as a POI when someone made it as an area just across the street. | |
| 49058989 by US Highway 266 | 1 | 2017-05-29 07:03:23 UTC | Paul Johnson | This is posted as Liberty Parkway east of US 169. |
| 48311916 by Mr Underhill | 1 | 2017-05-01 23:38:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | There's not really any tags to this point... what was added? |
| 46748156 by ScottWerkema | 1 | 2017-04-07 07:32:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | This may require further examination, looks like a potential ultralight airport looking at the FAA records. |
| 38292137 by AMLECHNER | 1 | 2017-03-22 11:46:16 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'd like to bring your attention to the talk-us mailing list, which appears to have questions regarding this and similar edits in the area. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-March/017168.html |
| 46948140 by Crakkon | 1 | 2017-03-19 13:05:17 UTC | Paul Johnson | This doesn't look like a bridleway on the aerial, neither does the thing west of it, either. |
| 2 | 2017-03-19 15:23:38 UTC | Crakkon | I live in this neighborhood, they are definitely horse trails. There are many trails between the houses in our neighborhood. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-20 13:37:40 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK, in that case, it looks like you may have tried mapping them as an area, when highway=* elements are intended to be linear down the centerline of the object. | |
| 46938461 by Crakkon | 1 | 2017-03-19 13:06:24 UTC | Paul Johnson | Might want to make sure your highway=* ways connect to other highways or it won't be routable. |
| 46764355 by mhenson | 1 | 2017-03-18 10:25:58 UTC | Paul Johnson | How was the trip? (BTW, it's QuikTrip, not QT; did that QuikTrip move to the corner by the freeway like the one on Sheridan did? |
| 2 | 2017-03-19 12:54:31 UTC | mhenson | Not sure about the "move" like sheridan. I just add what is not on the map as we drove by. | |
| 46717602 by Lumis1985 | 1 | 2017-03-18 10:19:03 UTC | Paul Johnson | try leisure=pitch, sport=basketball |
| 46716966 by Lumis1985 | 1 | 2017-03-18 10:17:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | Looks like this park is actually a bit bigger, the edges of the park should be on the edges of the park area. |
| 46693750 by calmlava | 1 | 2017-03-18 10:12:23 UTC | Paul Johnson | Please do not attach shopping areas to the abutting way centerlines, the edges should be on the actual edge of the area. |
| 46716574 by Lumis1985 | 1 | 2017-03-18 10:11:17 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is this really a park or is it essentially a backyard for the VGT offices? |
| 46631657 by A Swisher | 1 | 2017-03-18 10:09:08 UTC | Paul Johnson | Might want to update or remove maxspeed:source when changing maxspeed. |
| 46150231 by RetroGameBoy | 1 | 2017-02-17 11:41:33 UTC | Paul Johnson | Country Lane or County Line? Seems like we have a couple possibilities. |
| 2 | 2017-02-17 19:27:40 UTC | RetroGameBoy | Thank you for the catch. I believe it should by Country Lane, with an error on the Primary School when I first named it.I plan to confirm this weekend and will update according. | |
| 45898217 by Stevenbrown111 | 1 | 2017-02-08 08:17:59 UTC | Paul Johnson | Please don't use name=* as a description; if it doesn't have a name, don't add a name. |
| 44571745 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2017-02-06 22:13:37 UTC | yurasi | Hi Paul Johnson.Thank you for contributing to OSM. I noticed that you've added turn lanes that aren't visible on Bing satellite imagery (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/307091446). ¿Are you updating those turn lanes based on any special source? |
| 2 | 2017-02-07 05:31:57 UTC | Paul Johnson | This is that way overlaid over Bing. http://i.imgur.com/YBZSVno.pngI'm not sure what you're talking about. The lanes are precisely accurate including turn values. | |
| 45722855 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2017-02-01 22:10:51 UTC | ToeBee | This node seems like it might be legit although it is missing a primary tag. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4635971401/history |
| 2 | 2017-02-02 06:47:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | Seems pretty unlikely, node was on a private residence. | |
| 3 | 2017-02-02 06:53:07 UTC | ToeBee | The address on their website matches this block: http://www.decksbylazopro.com/It is probably a home business. | |
| 4 | 2017-02-02 07:31:44 UTC | Paul Johnson | Hmm, odd... not sure where Delaware Boulevard is, since the lat/long puts it on Delaware Ave. I've got my car with me tonight so I'll swing by after work and confirm for sure. | |
| 45527464 by donpedro1980 | 1 | 2017-01-27 06:38:43 UTC | nammala | Hi donpedro1980,You have added park but in the imagery it doesn't seem to be park, Could you please confirm.Regards,nammala |
| 2 | 2017-02-01 17:37:36 UTC | Paul Johnson | There's not a park here. | |
| 3 | 2017-02-02 04:18:43 UTC | nammala | Thanks Paul Johnson for getting back and deleting the change | |
| 4 | 2017-02-02 06:46:31 UTC | Paul Johnson | No problem. | |
| 45719689 by donpedro1980 | 1 | 2017-02-01 17:56:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | Do more of this, where you added something that exists. |
| 45719675 by donpedro1980 | 1 | 2017-02-01 17:55:26 UTC | Paul Johnson | Names are not descriptions. |
| 45719635 by donpedro1980 | 1 | 2017-02-01 17:55:08 UTC | Paul Johnson | This park does not exist. Please don't vandalize the map. |
| 45669216 by stemcelltulsa | 1 | 2017-02-01 11:29:05 UTC | Paul Johnson | What kind of shop is this? |
| 44298023 by bugo348 | 1 | 2017-01-27 17:37:02 UTC | Paul Johnson | This is not correct. That section of OK 364 has been signposted as Liberty Parkway for longer than I've lived here. |
| 45229760 by cadab321 | 1 | 2017-01-17 18:21:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | I think you meant "highway=service" leading into the Owasso 8th Grade Center, not tertiary. This looks like a driveway and a parking lot, not the main road through a neighborhood. |
| 2 | 2017-01-17 19:28:23 UTC | cadab321 | You are absolutely right, it is a private drive. I fixed it, thanks! | |
| 3 | 2017-01-17 20:28:54 UTC | Paul Johnson | No problem. Don't mean to sound overly critical, especially to new names... just trying to avoid priority creep on what gets mapped. | |
| 44914222 by Stephen214 | 1 | 2017-01-05 22:22:20 UTC | woodpeck | Hello Stephen214, in this changeset you seem to have deleted a large number of "mini roundabouts". Can you explain the reasoning behind this? Have you actually looked at the objects in question, or have you simply removed them according to some search/replace logic? Looking, for example, a... |
| 2 | 2017-01-05 23:07:06 UTC | Stephen214 | I looked at each one (of thousands, so hours of work) via sat imagery. Many cases, including the one you cited, were actually roundabouts, which have a non-mountable island, rather than mini_roundabouts, which have a mountable (often just paint) island. About as many cases were actually turning_ci... | |
| 3 | 2017-01-06 10:21:52 UTC | Paul Johnson | For example, the only mini-roundabout that I have found in the US so far is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1555921214 | |
| 4 | 2017-01-10 19:36:04 UTC | Stephen214 | These islands look mountable (just paint) as well:http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/95712768http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/271831024I have local knowledge these are mountable:http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/767536813http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2958897476In general, I assumed t... | |
| 5 | 2017-01-11 13:16:45 UTC | Paul Johnson | Those last two look iffy from the aerials but I'll take your word for it. The first two are definitely mini-roundabouts, good finds! | |
| 40575401 by andy51edge | 1 | 2017-01-07 11:41:34 UTC | Paul Johnson | Bike routes generally don't follow sidewalks as it's not legal for bicycles to go more than pedestrian speeds on sidewalks. They go into the streets to avoid pedestrian conflict. |
| 43447524 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2016-11-06 20:08:36 UTC | scruss | nice work, Paul! |
| 2 | 2016-11-07 12:47:27 UTC | Paul Johnson | Thanks! | |
| 43015669 by Darrell | 1 | 2016-10-20 11:25:55 UTC | Paul Johnson | Maybe this should be undeleted, and instead retagged as a brownfield site. Deleting the property also removes the address, which is still valid for this site. |
| 2 | 2016-10-21 05:15:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | If there's no objection, I will be reverting this edit to restore the deleted address. | |
| 3 | 2016-10-22 07:24:39 UTC | Carnildo | I've used the "destroyed" lifecycle prefix (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) for buildings that have been burned down or otherwise destroyed by disaster. It's common for them to be rebuilt on the same foundation with the same roof outline, and this preserves the infor... | |
| 4 | 2016-10-22 13:38:55 UTC | Paul Johnson | That's probably a good idea on this building, since it is *Very* much destroyed, and damaged most of the buildings within the vicinity (I've heard reports of damage as far up as Irving in one direction and Everett in the other). The building itself looks like it basically exploded, fell into it's o... | |
| 42128477 by Gavin Wallace | 1 | 2016-09-13 15:21:37 UTC | Paul Johnson | Are these permanent viewpoints or something specific for a crew? |
| 2 | 2016-09-13 16:19:18 UTC | Gavin Wallace | These are specific for a crew. A photoshoot route | |
| 3 | 2016-09-14 13:11:03 UTC | Paul Johnson | This might be better done with some other tool rather than adding this data to OpenStreetMap directly. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/25/how-do-i-add-a-marker-to-a-map has some suggestions on how to accomplish this. | |
| 1958636 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2016-08-30 20:27:49 UTC | Peter Dobratz | Can you elaborate on where the name "Minnesota Freeway" comes from? |
| 2 | 2016-08-30 21:00:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | Minnesota Freeway comes from Oregon DOT, after Minnesota Avenue. | |
| 3 | 2016-08-30 22:38:11 UTC | Peter Dobratz | The reason I ask is that an anonymous user posted a note last year saying that the "Minnesota Freeway" name was wrong. There were a few users that agreed, but not action was taken to change the data prior to closing the note.I'm poking around on the ODOT site to see if I can find anyt... | |
| 4 | 2016-08-30 22:55:30 UTC | Peter Dobratz | The ODOT "Moving Ahead" newsletter from September 2006 contains a trivia question (page 6):"Which portion of the interstate was once known as Minnesota Freeway?"http://www.odotmovingahead.com/2006/09/I can't find the official answers to these trivia questions, but jus... | |
| 5 | 2016-08-31 05:15:28 UTC | Paul Johnson | Probably worth keeping as the name=* for now until we know when it stopped being called that, if ever. | |
| 6 | 2016-08-31 05:16:10 UTC | Paul Johnson | And maybe harass OreDOT for their insufficient signage, a statewide problem. | |
| 7 | 2016-09-02 02:35:43 UTC | roadgeek99 | Traffic reporters and people around here aren't calling it the Minnesota Freeway anymore, just I-5. Worth tossing it into old_name. Minnesota Freeway isn't signed anywhere along that stretch. I could only see that name used in historical records. I have an answer with more detail in the OSM PDX mail... | |
| 8 | 2016-09-02 02:47:32 UTC | Peter Dobratz | I'll write up a wiki page with the rationale behind the tagging. | |
| 9 | 2016-09-02 05:55:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | That's a pretty recent thing on that then, Roadgeek; I remember KPOJ and KEX would refer to it by name for brevity's sake as recently as 2012 when I was last in the area. | |
| 41831959 by GoWestTravel | 1 | 2016-08-31 17:48:10 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK, I'm afraid just removing the copyright doesn't change the questionability of your source. Can you address that? |
| 2 | 2016-08-31 17:48:59 UTC | Paul Johnson | Sorry about that, I see you responded on the other changeset. | |
| 3 | 2016-08-31 17:52:05 UTC | GoWestTravel | I'm working in the travel industry and use data of the hotel chains itself. | |
| 4 | 2016-08-31 17:56:05 UTC | Paul Johnson | Aah, OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the clarification. | |
| 5 | 2016-08-31 17:57:27 UTC | GoWestTravel | You're welcome Paul. Thank you for noticing my error. | |
| 38078751 by GoWestTravel | 1 | 2016-08-31 17:41:26 UTC | Paul Johnson | Did you just copy these from Google? What has me concerned is your tagging in http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182541134 |
| 2 | 2016-08-31 17:46:09 UTC | GoWestTravel | You're absolutely right. I copied this one from Google and I regret doing so. I know better than to do that, but apparently had a sloppy moment 5 months ago. I removed the error and I apologize for getting this into the OSM database. It will not happen again. | |
| 3 | 2016-08-31 17:50:43 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK, that's...odd. How are you sourcing this data, typically? It's one thing to survey on the ground but copying from sources that don't allow that is a major red flag. | |
| 41240619 by John Gregorovic | 1 | 2016-08-05 19:02:37 UTC | Paul Johnson | This is a pretty strong edge case. I used to run service calls to this location and was usually given the address 1 Technology Ctr for the location. |
| 2 | 2016-08-05 20:38:49 UTC | John Gregorovic | Working in the building, and receiving mail there, I'm confident the address is One Technology Center building at 175 E. 2nd Street. | |
| 3 | 2016-08-05 20:57:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | OK, I think we're in a situation where we're both technically correct, since it's not uncommon for buildings to have a postal address different from street address. I'm in no way saying you're wrong (particularly since that would be where I would expect 175 2nd St to be, and 1 Technology Ctr actual... | |
| 27302135 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2016-06-10 16:37:19 UTC | ediyes | Hi there!I've found your edits where you add turn lanes but does not match with satellite images, maybe it is a local knowledge. but also the number of lanes does not match with turn:lanes |
| 2 | 2016-06-10 17:40:53 UTC | Paul Johnson | Which intersection, please? I'd be happy to make a closer look. | |
| 3 | 2016-07-22 20:15:24 UTC | ediyes | Hi!!For example this street https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/83637103 | |
| 4 | 2016-07-27 06:02:44 UTC | Paul Johnson | Probably some dumbass mistake introduced before the turn lane editing tools got good. I'm about to go over all of the turnpikes pretty closely since 240 are too much in flux to narrow it down at the moment. | |
| 40208333 by Hawken Rives | 1 | 2016-06-22 15:33:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | Welcome to Tulsa and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Glad to see some fresh names around here! |
| 31779520 by blakelylaw | 1 | 2016-06-21 16:42:51 UTC | Paul Johnson | Please review name tags carefully when editing. Also be aware that name=US Highway 70 isn't correct, it either lacks a name tag and just has ref=US 70 or has a proper name. In this case, you smashed out a section of highway that was renamed in 2013. |
| 40096212 by jamesavery | 1 | 2016-06-17 16:47:27 UTC | Paul Johnson | I know you're not new to this, so you mind fixing this yourself? Namely, the addr:street is wrong (add the entire name), phone numbers should be in international format, and you really need to read the wiki page on opening_hours already. |
| 38399117 by dmw918 | 1 | 2016-04-08 15:52:55 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm fairly sure most of this space bound by 244, Memorial, Pine and 89th would be brownfield. You can find foundations and stuff from a previously destroyed development in this area. |
| 2 | 2016-06-12 22:16:52 UTC | dmw918 | it listed new development in the brownfield description is why i chose grass without knowing much about attribution. | |
| 3 | 2016-06-12 23:08:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | Aah, not sure if there's been new development there lately but when I went to go vote at John Ross while I was still living in Mingo RV Park, save for Spartan and the apartments behind it, that block was pretty much overgrown foundations. | |
| 38711122 by jpmartin1977 | 1 | 2016-04-20 15:58:08 UTC | Paul Johnson | Not to be a jerk, but got no changeset comment to go with and saw a lot of deletes in the area...what's going on? |
| 2 | 2016-04-20 18:07:06 UTC | jpmartin1977 | I have converted all of the villages (were supposed to be neighbourhods) to neighborhouds. I am working on fixing the entire Tulsa area. Sorry about the lack of comments. | |
| 38225411 by jpmartin1977 | 1 | 2016-04-02 19:54:59 UTC | Paul Johnson | It's not clear to me what was being done with this changeset given the huge number of removals and changes scattered piecemeal. Changeset descriptions would help. |
| 2 | 2016-04-03 03:41:58 UTC | jpmartin1977 | The deletes where neighborhoods. They have been redone as villages | |
| 3 | 2016-04-15 09:12:42 UTC | nikhilprabhakar | Hi jpmartin,I don't think these are villages. All of these looks like neighbourhoods. Can you please share the source used to make these changes? | |
| 4 | 2016-04-15 12:55:01 UTC | jpmartin1977 | I will go change them to neighbourhoods. I have been a bit confused on which is which. Give me a few days. I'm not working where I usually am so I do not have as much time as usual | |
| 5 | 2016-04-18 04:26:21 UTC | nikhilprabhakar | That is great jpmartin. Lemme know if you need any help from me.- Nikhil | |
| 6 | 2016-04-18 12:02:45 UTC | jpmartin1977 | Thank you sir! I'll start working on them today. I will send you a message if I need some help. | |
| 26813194 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2016-02-18 16:41:13 UTC | jaakkoh | Hi,Does this stop (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/177164158) in this changeset marked on the note of the intersection imply that it's an "4=all way" stop?I haven't bumped into such way of tagging before -- but it could make sense..Cheers, -J |
| 2 | 2016-02-18 16:41:46 UTC | jaakkoh | Oh, forgot to mention. You have an open note about the stop next to the intersection. Pls close that if it's no longer valid. | |
| 3 | 2016-02-18 19:46:40 UTC | Paul Johnson | Yes, if it's on the intersection, it applies to all directions entering the intersection. | |
| 4 | 2016-02-18 19:47:53 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'll get to that note at some point, I'm a bit behind on catching up on those. | |
| 5 | 2016-02-18 20:36:33 UTC | jaakkoh | Ah, ok for the all way stop. That makes sense -- even though I can see how it also causes a good(?) chunk of possible if not likely mistakes by less advanced mappers...Yea, the backlog of notes is painfully easy to accumulate. .. And of course it's more of a filtering problem than anything else ... | |
| 32215967 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2016-02-05 05:54:51 UTC | nikhilprabhakar | Hi, This whole area seems to be tagged with 'highway=road`. The changeset says this road will be demolished and reconstructed, but is this the latest update for this area?Kindly reply. |
| 2 | 2016-02-05 10:17:16 UTC | Paul Johnson | This is intentional, as it's my understanding that highway=road is for roads short in the tooth. This is currently the latest on this, I am proactively monitoring the situation in the Crossroads area. | |
| 36768739 by XenonYoshi | 1 | 2016-01-24 04:05:21 UTC | Paul Johnson | Welcome to OSM! I see this is a large changeset with a short description, curious if you could tell me more about what changed. |
| 2 | 2016-01-24 23:44:06 UTC | XenonYoshi | Some road we're a bit off, I fixed some of those in the area. I also removed some Residential Roads that we're actually just driveways to houses. I may add those back as a different type of road a bit later on. Other than that, I just fixed a few errors around the area. I really didn't expect any re... | |
| 3 | 2016-01-25 00:16:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | A better strategy on driveways would be to change them to highway=service, service=driveway, access=private, especially in these boonies where driveways may lead to a residence a very long distance from a road. This map is often the first resource for humanitarian resources. | |
| 4 | 2016-01-25 00:24:57 UTC | XenonYoshi | Ok, thanks for the tip. I'll work on the area that I removed them from. Didn't realise I could change a road from the side bar. | |
| 5 | 2016-01-25 00:37:10 UTC | Paul Johnson | If you're interested in looking into long-term and more than trivial editing, you might want to look into JOSM as an editor. id is excellent for small work, though JOSM is better for handling large scale or more precise work. | |
| 6 | 2016-01-25 00:43:36 UTC | XenonYoshi | Ok, I'll look into it. Thanks a lot. | |
| 16637865 by Grant Humphries | 1 | 2016-01-19 18:01:52 UTC | Paul Johnson | While ODOT is indisputably the owner, I believe Sand Island (near I 205) was leased to and operated by the Boy Scouts of America Cascade Pacific Council in 1928, expiring at the earliest in 2027 and presently used as an unimproved campsite Venture and Sea Scout units. |
| 2 | 2016-01-20 18:52:42 UTC | Grant Humphries | That's really interesting. The operator tag was derived from RLIS data for which I created a translation into OSM tags. I looks like you're more informed about this feature than me so feel free to modify it as you see fit. | |
| 35923778 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2015-12-14 08:03:57 UTC | GerdP | Hi Paul,you have used highway=motorway_junctioninstead of highway=motorway_linkfor two ways. I've corrected this,but it seems that it was intended?My changeset:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35939546 |
| 2 | 2015-12-15 08:41:58 UTC | Paul Johnson | No, I had a braino. Thanks for the fix. | |
| 3 | 2015-12-15 08:51:20 UTC | GerdP | Great word: braino ;-) | |
| 33053301 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2015-11-21 01:35:26 UTC | maxerickson | I live just down the road from the stretch you marked trunk between Gladstone and Rapid River there. I agree that it looks an awful lot like trunk, and it even has a special speed limit set by the state (65 instead of 55), but it's really just horribly overbuilt and isn't functionally any different ... |
| 2 | 2015-11-21 07:58:48 UTC | Paul Johnson | Expressways and freeways are kind of special cases in US tagging, getting Trunk and Motorway respectively. | |
| 3 | 2015-11-21 10:54:24 UTC | maxerickson | The stretch you have marked trunk is not limited access. It's not connected to much, but it isn't limited access. | |
| 4 | 2015-11-21 12:52:09 UTC | Paul Johnson | It appears to be limited access. It's not _controlled_ access, but it is limited access. | |
| 5 | 2015-11-21 13:47:53 UTC | maxerickson | There's a stop light at the southern end and another at the divergence of M 35 and no stretch longer than about 3 miles without a crossing.The only road that wasn't connected to it when it was built was 26th road (by Masonville). I guess the minor streets in Gladstone also aren't connected, but ... | |
| 6 | 2015-11-21 13:56:30 UTC | Paul Johnson | It appears to have been deliberately disconnected from most of the grid in gladstone to limit access, and I'm not seeing any (mapped) driveways connecting to it. Looks pretty consistent with most semi-rural expressways in the midwest after looking at the aerials and looks to be consistent with the ... | |
| 7 | 2015-11-21 14:24:16 UTC | maxerickson | I always thought that expressway was for roads with grade separation at (especially major) intersections. In this case, the major intersections are stop lights. | |
| 8 | 2015-11-21 14:40:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | That's a freeway. Expressways are pretty much anything that fills in the gap between a freeway and the surface classifications. Examples of expressways would things that would otherwise be a freeway but are only single carriageway (no center divider, but controlled access), or aren't fully control... | |
| 9 | 2015-11-21 14:42:54 UTC | maxerickson | http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/glossary/glossary_listing.cfm?TitleStart=E ? | |
| 10 | 2015-11-21 14:54:27 UTC | Paul Johnson | That's the first I've seen any planning documents suggest a definition other than what's seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-access_road#United_States, which cites http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part1/part1a.htm as the definition for "expressway" as "a divided highway ... | |
| 11 | 2015-11-21 15:05:55 UTC | maxerickson | "partial control of access" is not exactly specific. A stop sign would pretty much meet that definition. | |
| 12 | 2015-11-22 15:20:11 UTC | Paul Johnson | Fully controlled access generally means a complete lack of driveways and at-grade intersections, with access limited only to entry and exit ramps. Partially controlled means there may be some driveways and intersections, but they're relatively sparse, and some may be controlled access junctions (ram... | |
| 13 | 2015-11-22 15:25:53 UTC | Paul Johnson | Or similar situations where it's single carrageway but all the junctions are ramps. | |
| 14 | 2015-11-22 15:36:04 UTC | maxerickson | Right. In this case 100% of the intersections are at grade. The stuff at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33053301#map=17/45.85630/-87.02232 is not really ramp like, there are stop lights, and there are railroad crossings.There aren't a whole lot of intersections in the longer stretch, but... | |
| 15 | 2015-11-22 16:52:08 UTC | Paul Johnson | Whether or not the road is overbuilt as an expressway is immaterial to the fact that it's an expressway, though. | |
| 16 | 2015-11-22 18:16:15 UTC | maxerickson | It is not an expressway. That is is overbuilt makes it look like one in the aerial imagery. | |
| 17 | 2015-11-23 08:01:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | It still appears to meet the definition of an expressway. | |
| 18 | 2015-11-23 13:51:43 UTC | maxerickson | Well, we are at an impasse. I think I'll change it back to primary and if you still think it is trunk after you have driven it a few times you can change it back. | |
| 19 | 2015-11-24 07:26:23 UTC | Paul Johnson | I recommend keeping it at trunk and finding another party familiar with the difference who is in the area. Based on everything you've described, it still sounds like a trunk. | |
| 8421895 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2015-11-17 22:59:44 UTC | Peter Dobratz | I'm thinking we don't want to trace the outline of a boat as a building in OSM. Especially not a boat that still travels along the river and is not permanently at this location. I'd say put it in OSM if it was permanently parked here, but that's not the case.http://www.oregonmaritimemuseum.org... |
| 2 | 2015-11-18 13:29:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | Fair enough. I thought the ship was permanently moored, given I haven't seen evidence that it moves at the time I marked it out. | |
| 3 | 2016-04-13 03:55:34 UTC | Peter Dobratz | I walked by here and I'm trying to figure out the nest way to map this. There is a barge close to the riverbank that stays permanently in place and supports the footbridge and may provide ancillary storage for the museum. Then there's the riverboat, which contains the museum. This is a working ri... | |
| 35120619 by GerdP | 1 | 2015-11-07 09:01:24 UTC | Paul Johnson | Thank you for spotting a location I incorrectly tagged with a name, but a way that only serves as part of an intersection would be considered a link. As all ways in this location are "residential" and nothing has a frontage to way 262287021, residential_link would be the correct value. |
| 2 | 2015-11-09 16:01:16 UTC | GerdP | well, sorry for my uncommented change.This "definition" of a *_link is very new to me,it sounds reasonable, but I wonder why the wiki documents only *_links for major road types. You probably noted the discussion about my changes:http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Undiscussed-edits-rem... | |
| 3 | 2015-11-15 09:41:35 UTC | GerdP | Hi Paul,it seems the discussion stopped. Do you still prefer to use residential_link ? | |
| 4 | 2015-11-16 12:26:01 UTC | Paul Johnson | Yes, I believe *_link fills an edge-case gap. | |
| 5 | 2015-11-16 17:38:41 UTC | GerdP | Hmm , ok, so I guess we have to live with missing roads on the map and possible routing errors produced by your edge cases. | |
| 34953949 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2015-10-29 17:09:37 UTC | Paul Johnson | Correct comment for changeset would be "Update on I 35/OK 9 at Norman" |
| 34725092 by Aerdan | 1 | 2015-10-19 10:26:57 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm curious what the goal was here and what changed. |
| 2 | 2015-10-19 12:49:45 UTC | Aerdan | Removed a very incorrect node (the Apostolic College was never located here, as far as I know), and added a fire lane that runs down the middle of the complex and my place of residence. | |
| 34656701 by grambo355 | 1 | 2015-10-15 15:22:35 UTC | Paul Johnson | This seems like an exceptionally unlikely name for a lot. |
| 34624725 by Nicolas Coffman | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:51:18 UTC | Paul Johnson | Did you use Google Maps as a source? |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 15:59:16 UTC | Nicolas Coffman | I used Google Maps to help dictate what it should look like. However, I live nearby and know this is an issue, particularly with the Uber drivers (not sure which map service they use). | |
| 3 | 2015-10-14 19:03:25 UTC | Paul Johnson | Probably best to use one of the imagery layers available in id or JOSM due to licensing issues with Google. Or use Osmand to make geographically based notes in the field to record key points. | |
| 4 | 2015-10-15 00:32:58 UTC | Nicolas Coffman | Thanks for the heads up! I did base the final decision on the Bing Satellite layer, but I'll certainly look into Osmand for future edits. | |
| 5 | 2015-10-15 07:34:49 UTC | Paul Johnson | Osmand is definitely my favorite tool for quick POI work and creation of OSM Notes from the field. | |
| 6 | 2015-10-15 07:35:12 UTC | Paul Johnson | https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=net.osmand.plus | |
| 33803123 by Sundance | 1 | 2015-10-14 20:40:30 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm curious why so many major arterials (and in particular, 71st, Memorial and Yale) got downgraded to secondary when they're some of the most important section lines in the city. |
| 34637943 by JaysonR | 1 | 2015-10-14 18:33:36 UTC | Paul Johnson | Please expand the abbreviation LSH. |
| 34635985 by Kyle Bolender | 1 | 2015-10-14 17:03:57 UTC | Paul Johnson | Not quite sure what you were going for here...care to give a hint? We might be able to provide some guidance. |
| 34636541 by Cody Ingram | 1 | 2015-10-14 17:02:54 UTC | Paul Johnson | If that's a typical Walgreens location, you might consider correct capitalisation on the name, and add amenity=pharmacy and change it to building=retail |
| 34624864 by tiger lilly | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:50:43 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is that the name of the drinking fountain or the adjacent building? Might map the library, too... |
| 34626481 by mackinnonfuneral | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:47:25 UTC | Paul Johnson | Large area of change set seems highly suspicious. Changeset comments are also not the place to advertise. note=* is not the place to advertise. Avoid abbreviations in addr:street. |
| 34626820 by renaissanceoutpatientutah | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:45:23 UTC | Paul Johnson | Added additional detail, fixed phone format. note=* is not the place to advertise. |
| 34628964 by Scott Asay | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:41:03 UTC | Paul Johnson | Added some additional detail and the correct amenity tag, and fixed the phone number for you. |
| 34632229 by Zeng Sheng | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:29:58 UTC | Paul Johnson | Not sure what changed here; changeset comments greatly help. |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 18:44:40 UTC | Zeng Sheng | It's mostly about adding some traffic light information | |
| 34632700 by rd2d | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:28:07 UTC | Paul Johnson | Helped you out a little bit since a node by itself isn't gonna get picked up by much other than a fulltext search. |
| 34633144 by pikevillefuneralhome | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:21:41 UTC | Paul Johnson | Reverting this edit.Notes are not the place to add advertising keywords. Changeset comments are not the place to give your elevator pitch. Location appears to be in a rural field, not the proper location. |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 15:22:11 UTC | Paul Johnson | Phone numbers should use international format, +1-971-555-1212 for example. | |
| 34633936 by Victoria Moore | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:12:36 UTC | Paul Johnson | Changeset comments are not the place to advertise. Please reformat the phone number to international notation so data consumers correctly handle it. Please avoid abbreviations in names. |
| 34623739 by Marco | Wimmer PLLC | 1 | 2015-10-14 15:03:06 UTC | Paul Johnson | You may want to change N to North in the addr:street tag, and add a ; after 17:00 in opening_hours to separate values so data consumers can accurately parse both. |
| 34581064 by Matt1993 | 1 | 2015-10-13 08:33:10 UTC | Paul Johnson | Could you use useful changeset comments about what's being changed, please?Also, I don't think the exit to Breezewood is really part of I 70 based on connectivity and shouldn't be tagged as such. The toll plaza also shouldn't be tagged as trunk, that whole ramp from the Pennsy Turnpike to the L... |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 09:18:46 UTC | rickmastfan67 | Actually, the part of I-70 from the toll plaza to the US-30 ramps is a motorway. Part of the original PA Turnpike, & has a high speed limit of 55mph (from what I remember the last time I was there, it's been a few years) for most of the length till right near where the ramps split for access to... | |
| 3 | 2015-10-14 13:21:55 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm referring to the ramp comprised of way 374896912, et. al. from the turnpike to Linoln Highway, not the motorway that crosses it on an overpass. | |
| 4 | 2015-11-03 02:31:19 UTC | rickmastfan67 | I don't agree with you there Paul. That part should still be a 'motorway' for the reasons I mentioned in my comment above. | |
| 34472698 by lawyer01 | 1 | 2015-10-06 17:25:07 UTC | Paul Johnson | Get your shit together and start using a single account to do your advertising already. It's obvious you're making a lot of sockpuppet accounts. Maybe try reading the wiki for how to tag correctly as well. |
| 2 | 2015-10-06 17:26:00 UTC | Paul Johnson | Also, changeset comments are not a place to advertise. | |
| 33930044 by Bickendan | 1 | 2015-09-11 04:38:47 UTC | roadgeek99 | Putting destination names as name values on motorway links is inappropriate. You can use two methods: the exit_to key (which put exit sign details on the exit number node, more at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:exit_to) or the destination key (which puts exit sign info on the ramp itself, mo... |
| 2 | 2015-09-11 06:04:02 UTC | Peter Dobratz | See also this discussion: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32230005 | |
| 3 | 2015-09-11 07:20:04 UTC | Paul Johnson | I can confirm that exit 2 is indeed signed as 43rd Avenue and 3 is signed 58th Avenue. ODOT cannibalized those streets to build the ramps and the signs for those streets are still actively maintained as of 5 years ago when I was last in the area. However, names should not contain abbreviations, NE... | |
| 4 | 2015-09-11 07:24:06 UTC | Paul Johnson | Also, I can confirm that the signed destination for Exits 2 and 3 are NOT what the ramps are named. Now, it's been a while, but I believe the first segment of exit 3 should have destination=Northeast 60th Avenue, junction:ref=3 in the transition segment and exit 2 should be similarly tagged on the ... | |
| 5 | 2015-09-11 07:25:01 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'll be happy to set my proposed tagging if that's cool with the participants involved. | |
| 6 | 2015-09-11 09:48:56 UTC | Bickendan | Paul, I'll double check the signage from the freeway to see if ODOT's changed it in the recent past. | |
| 7 | 2015-09-11 09:55:36 UTC | Paul Johnson | Sure. Be aware that the signs at the motorway_junction are the ramp's destination, these two ramps are named on the surface-street end by the blade signs at Halsey and Glisan respectively. | |
| 8 | 2015-09-11 09:58:51 UTC | Bickendan | Those are the two signs I have in mind. If memory serves, 58th (not 60th) is also on one of the eastbound exit mileage signs. | |
| 9 | 2015-09-11 15:18:47 UTC | Bickendan | Exit 2 (west) is 43rd, and 3 (east) is 58th. Additionally, the exit mileage signs at 21st, 39th/Chavez and 53rd all use 58th Ave. I will say it's odd for ODOT to use these instead of 42nd or Halsey and 60th or Glisan, but the motoway_junction signs are explicitly naming the ramps as the destinatio... | |
| 10 | 2015-09-11 19:27:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | Oh really? The blade signage agrees with the exit signage? Man, it has been a long time. You wouldn't have caught this on Mapillary, would you? | |
| 11 | 2015-09-11 19:30:00 UTC | Bickendan | Never heard of Mapillary until now o.0I drove I-84 this morning after dropping my roommate off at work. | |
| 12 | 2015-09-11 20:55:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | Let's try http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33969494 on for size, shall we? | |
| 33719367 by Richard | 1 | 2015-09-07 05:47:03 UTC | Paul Johnson | Curious what was going on here. |
| 2 | 2015-09-07 07:23:47 UTC | Richard | TIGER review from aerial imagery. Essentially reviewing tagging on good-quality paved roads which go somewhere (i.e. through routes rather than just residential access), generally by bringing them into the standard highway=tertiary tag; plus occasional fixup of smaller roads that deserve to be resid... | |
| 3 | 2015-09-08 16:09:21 UTC | Paul Johnson | Aah, OK. I was just scratching my head since I couldn't quite spot the pattern (subtle, sparse changeset) myself but that makes sense. | |
| 33669446 by jakeroot | 1 | 2015-09-02 07:37:33 UTC | Paul Johnson | This is incorrect tagging; the motorway is not yet complete. Recommend highway=trunk, construction=motorway until the entire segment is upgraded, making it consistent with tagging usage in the US for trunks and motorways. |
| 2 | 2015-09-02 07:37:52 UTC | Paul Johnson | This issue has been referred to talk-us and the data working group. | |
| 3 | 2015-09-02 08:04:14 UTC | jakeroot | Are you referring to the entirety of WA-500 as it exists between I-5 and Fourth Plain Blvd? Or just between the Andreson and St Johns junctions? | |
| 4 | 2015-09-02 10:10:07 UTC | rickmastfan67 | highway=trunk + construction=motorway isn't correct tagging. That can break routing. | |
| 5 | 2015-09-02 10:10:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | I 5 to Fourth Plain. construction=motorway shouldn't break routing because it's not highway=construction. | |
| 6 | 2015-09-02 10:12:22 UTC | rickmastfan67 | Broke Mapquest Open routing when I did something similar on a road in the past. | |
| 7 | 2015-09-02 10:19:22 UTC | rickmastfan67 | Because they picked up on the highway 'type' in the construction tag. Anyways Paul, did you know that WSDOT considers what's tagged right now as a 'motorway'? http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/706FD0DF-CD12-42CD-9FEE-65545EF3F10B/0/Q14.pdf | |
| 8 | 2015-09-02 10:22:15 UTC | Paul Johnson | What WSDOT considers it at what OSM considers it are two different things, the only country where the official classification and the OSM classification are congruent is the UK. Essentially, if it's not interstate standard, it's likely not a motorway. See the United States entry under http://wiki.... | |
| 9 | 2015-09-02 10:40:58 UTC | SomeoneElse | Re "construction" confusing routers, I'm not seeing that at http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_car&route=52.63936%2C-2.47228%3B52.63906%2C-2.47056 where http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121769393 has a construction tag. Can anyone find somewhere where it does? I w... | |
| 10 | 2015-09-02 10:45:52 UTC | rickmastfan67 | It happened in the past. I guess they might have fixed that bug with their router. | |
| 11 | 2015-09-02 11:16:04 UTC | rickmastfan67 | So, Paul, with the "if it's not interstate standard, it's likely not a motorway", are you going to go edit in NYC and change the 'non Interstate standard' segments on some of the Interstates that were grandfather in with I-# at the start of the system? Or maybe change the 'Super-2' segmen... | |
| 12 | 2015-09-02 11:21:40 UTC | Paul Johnson | No, because it's an exceptional situation in the Interstate cases you mention. In the WA 500 instance, 3 at-grade intersections represents almost half of the junctions on the road, making it more consistent with OSM-US practice of tagging surface expressways as a trunk instead of as a motorway. WA... | |
| 13 | 2015-09-02 11:41:30 UTC | Bickendan | From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging: "Any freeway anywhere in the United States, whether designated Interstate or otherwise, gets highway=motorway." WSDOT considers WA 500 from I-5 to 42nd/Falk and from 54th/Stapleton to Fourth Plain/WA 503 as a freeway.... | |
| 14 | 2015-09-02 11:56:41 UTC | Paul Johnson | WA 500 is, by and large, a super 4. I'm not seeing any functional difference between 500 and 224. OSM's definition as it's presently being used nationally with what is a trunk might differ from what a state's definition of what it may be. It's normal for there to be some variation with the offici... | |
| 15 | 2015-09-02 12:01:49 UTC | Bickendan | WA 500 is divided. It has two carriageways. Super-4's do not. OR 224 is a Super-4. The only crossover points on WA 500 are from where the concrete divider begins and ends at the left turn lanes for 42nd, and at 54th. | |
| 16 | 2015-09-02 12:03:30 UTC | Bickendan | So no, WA 500, in the segments in contention, is NOT a Super-4. It is a fully divided freeway. | |
| 17 | 2015-09-02 12:06:45 UTC | Paul Johnson | However, neither WA 500 or OR 224 are both fully controlled access (ie, grade seperated) and fully divided. It's limited access (a combination of interstate style roadway with surface intersections) and fully divided, which would make it a textbook trunk candidate. | |
| 18 | 2015-09-02 12:24:36 UTC | Bickendan | Do not compare WA 500 to OR 224. They are apples to oranges. WA 500 is fully divided from I-5 to WA 503/Fourth Plain; you are incorrect in saying that it isn't. And again, you are attempting to generalize the road into a single category, which is cartographically dishonest for a map that strives to ... | |
| 19 | 2015-09-02 20:06:13 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm saying the common usage for motorway has four parts: High speed limit and all three of 1) full grade seperation, 2) multilane, 3) fully divided. Any exceptions should be extremely rare to non-existant (for example, the ranch access gates for ranchland in Utah that have no other frontage on I80... | |
| 20 | 2015-09-02 20:27:25 UTC | Bickendan | And the 'nature' of the road is a freeway with an expressway break. It is not a surface expressway. To use an absurd simile: A person has a prosthetic limb. They are wanting to clone their missing limb but can't afford it so the prosthetic must do in the meantime. By your standard, instead of ... | |
| 21 | 2015-09-02 21:29:53 UTC | Paul Johnson | So what makes the northwest so special that they can just disregard common usage? I'm familiar with the road, and with WSDOT's idiosyncrasies. | |
| 22 | 2015-09-02 21:36:56 UTC | Bickendan | If you were familiar with the road, why call it a Super-4 when it's not? Why compare it to OR 224, when such a comparison is disingenuous at best? And speaking of OR 224, it is incorrectly mapped as a twinned highway when it isn't. | |
| 23 | 2015-09-02 22:06:44 UTC | Paul Johnson | Indeed you're correct on 224. However, in both cases, neither operate completely as motorways for about the same reason. If we were to tag it your way, it'd be switching back and forth between motorway and trunk every other junction (but you're right, it should be converted if they finally took ou... | |
| 24 | 2015-09-02 22:11:38 UTC | Chris Lawrence | To wade in here a bit, I don't think the North American usage of the "highway=motorway" tag has ever required that a road have freeway characteristics from end to end, merely that the segments tagged as motorway have those characteristics for a reasonable length. I really don't think an ap... | |
| 25 | 2015-09-02 22:23:07 UTC | Paul Johnson | That seems to be an equally oddly tagged trunk; I'd probably have gone with trunk from Swope Pky to I 435 so there's at least an equal interchange at either end of the segment. These things get backed up more than motorways more or less inherent to their design compared to motorways (if you except ... | |
| 26 | 2015-09-02 22:24:40 UTC | jakeroot | From the standpoint of someone who is just as familiar with the area, making the entirety of the road a trunk road when the entrances say "freeway" and the state map says "freeway" is misleading at best. And Mr Johnson, I understand your point that it's inconsistent within the OS... | |
| 27 | 2015-09-03 07:42:36 UTC | Paul Johnson | Well, let's look at it from the root of what the trunk and motorway definitions are, the AASHTO definitions of limited access, partially controlled access, and controlled access. OSM would consider the former two as a trunk, and the latter as motorway. AASHTO's definition would consider WA 500 fro... | |
| 28 | 2015-09-03 22:26:12 UTC | Bickendan | Again, isn't OSM's mission to provide the most accurate maps online through the use of open collaboration? Rigidly adhering to definitions that don't fit every situation compromises cartographic accuracy and disservices the end user. It's bad enough that OSM uses the Mercator projection (and note th... | |
| 29 | 2015-09-03 22:38:38 UTC | Paul Johnson | Yes, that is the point, Bickendan, which is why I'm rejecting WSDOT's assertation and substituting in one that is the most consistent in accurately describing this object. One thing we do need to watch out for is an upward creep in tag classification as well or the higher classifications lose meani... | |
| 30 | 2015-09-03 23:00:16 UTC | Bickendan | But this is the point you're not considering: We are classifying how the road functions in actual operation, from in the field observation! | |
| 31 | 2015-09-04 06:31:57 UTC | Paul Johnson | Evidently not, motorways are controlled access, divided exclusively. | |
| 32 | 2015-09-04 07:20:12 UTC | Bickendan | From I-5 to 42nd, is WA 500 divided? Is it controlled access? From 54th to Fourth Plain, is it divided? Is it controlled access? And, from 42nd to 54th, is it divided? Is it controlled access? | |
| 33 | 2015-09-04 07:51:58 UTC | Paul Johnson | The only real difference between trunk and motorway in OSM classification is that trunks might be controlled access but lack a median, or are divided but lack a full control along a segment that people generally consider as contigous. Certainly that is the case with WA 500, as just saying SR 500 or... | |
| 34 | 2015-09-04 15:42:22 UTC | Chris Lawrence | Paul: It was *your own edits* that deleted the lane counts. Reverting this changeset wouldn't fix that. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history and http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32790788 | |
| 35 | 2015-09-05 21:40:01 UTC | jakeroot | I don't think this particular changeset had any lane modifications, but my original changeset which changed the roadway from trunk to motorway did include quite a few merged ways on my part (I was not aware how much detail there was in regards to lanes). I did not intend to ruin any detail that you ... | |
| 36 | 2015-09-05 23:16:12 UTC | Paul Johnson | Sorry for coming in a little bit hot. Let's go ahead and get that reverted and work to coming to some agreement on classification. Can we come to an agreement that most people in the region view WA 500 west of Fourth Plain as a single unit? | |
| 37 | 2015-09-07 04:07:08 UTC | jakeroot | Who exactly reverts the changeset? I would do it, if I knew how to without potentially exacerbating things. | |
| 38 | 2015-09-07 04:45:20 UTC | rickmastfan67 | We could ask somebody in the DWG to do the revert, because of being a neutral party. | |
| 39 | 2015-09-08 16:07:51 UTC | Paul Johnson | Yeah, let's get the DWG to handle the revert since there's apparently more than one changeset involved and this is hella-messy. | |
| 31707044 by blakelylaw | 1 | 2015-09-08 10:17:51 UTC | Paul Johnson | Looks like a mess was made out of motorway_junction nodes with the refs being moved to the names, and I 40 itself getting renamed incorrectly to "Interstate 40" |
| 2 | 2015-09-08 10:18:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | Correct name for I 40 within this changeset should be "Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Highway" based on signage. | |
| 33587233 by jakeroot | 1 | 2015-08-26 04:52:23 UTC | jakeroot | Previous link was incorrect. Here is the correct link:http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/706FD0DF-CD12-42CD-9FEE-65545EF3F10B/0/Q14.pdf |
| 2 | 2015-09-05 13:37:26 UTC | Paul Johnson | I consider this changeset malice a forethought as it clearly has an agenda to torque the tags in a fashion similar to NE2 to map in a way that nobody would reasonably expect (such as making a partially controlled highway a motorway), and an extremely high number of ways were merged in this vandalism... | |
| 3 | 2015-09-05 15:42:13 UTC | rickmastfan67 | You ever think that the lane tagging problem could be caused by ID not alerting the user to tags being merged/changed? | |
| 4 | 2015-09-05 15:48:46 UTC | rickmastfan67 | iD doesn't seem to care about those 'new' tags and doesn't alert a user to them. So, instead of calling it vandalism, maybe go over to the iD GitHub page and report a bug about this? https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD | |
| 33611137 by jpmartin1977 | 1 | 2015-09-04 19:43:40 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is this the name of a subdivision or something? |
| 2 | 2015-09-07 07:14:34 UTC | jpmartin1977 | It is. | |
| 33760942 by ali_kleyman | 1 | 2015-09-03 16:34:42 UTC | Paul Johnson | What kind of object is WPCF? Also consider using description=* or mapping recharge basins as the appropriate water object without a name=* tag if the name is not known. |
| 33761489 by As Seen On TV Hot 10 | 1 | 2015-09-03 16:24:42 UTC | Paul Johnson | Please use addr:unit=* for the suite number and E.123 International Notation for the phone number (ie, +1-800-555-1212) |
| 33770784 by harleyguy11ultra | 1 | 2015-09-03 15:42:57 UTC | Paul Johnson | Moving this to note 428030. |
| 33743303 by tnkmlz | 1 | 2015-09-02 19:26:16 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is this a marina or something? name=* by itself doesn't really define the object. |
| 33729539 by Methodist Sports | 1 | 2015-09-01 16:18:21 UTC | Paul Johnson | Which building? Also, is it really a hospital or is it a clinic? |
| 13993232 by FTA | 1 | 2015-08-24 22:42:14 UTC | Paul Johnson | I don't think landuse=military is really the right land use for a civilian law enforcement training center. |
| 2 | 2015-08-30 23:40:41 UTC | FTA | The future me would be inclined to agree with you and not the past me. | |
| 3 | 2015-08-31 10:45:30 UTC | Paul Johnson | Not sure what the correct tag would be but I can think of a whole lot of wrong ones. | |
| 4 | 2015-09-01 04:05:10 UTC | FTA | https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-March/072349.html talks about what the pipe dream would be for tagging.I found a case of a police academy in England tagged as a college http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261883840Maybe a protected area http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag... | |
| 5 | 2015-09-01 06:36:12 UTC | Paul Johnson | This might be a job for tagging@ | |
| 32230005 by Bickendan | 1 | 2015-07-08 18:33:24 UTC | Paul Johnson | WA 500 doesn't make any sense as a motorway due to it's short length and high number of at-grade intersections (at least 2 in 4 miles). Typically, motorways have no at-grade intersections, or extremely rare. Good example of a motorway with at-grade intersections would be US 412 in Oklahoma, with a... |
| 2 | 2015-07-08 18:35:31 UTC | Paul Johnson | Further, there's no real justification for changing the highway tag for such short segments of highway, the characteristic of SR 500 doesn't change during it's entire length; the map should reflect it's consistent nature. Another similar highway that is consistently tagged correctly of the same cha... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-08 22:05:31 UTC | Bickendan | I wonder if this is a discrepancy in the definitions being used for motorways, freeways and expressways for OSM's purposes (noting that 'expressway' does hold different meanings between the east coast and the west coast of the US). SR 500's length should have no bearing on whether it is a motorway... | |
| 4 | 2015-07-09 13:56:20 UTC | Paul Johnson | Generally speaking, if there's more than one at-grade intersection, it's a surface expressway in the Oregon/Washington sense (of a freeway with intersections), even if there are fully separated interchanges between intervening intersections. Motorway would be for situations where it's a one-off or ... | |
| 5 | 2015-07-29 04:34:02 UTC | Peter Dobratz | Bickenden, where did you get the name "Kerby Ave Ramp"?The first thing that jumps out is that it goes against the convention of not using abbreviations in street names in OSM. Generally,all of the various _link roads (such as highway=motorway_link) don't have the name tag. | |
| 6 | 2015-07-29 21:58:43 UTC | Bickendan | It's local nomenclature for this particular ramp, and the only one to have it. I doubt it's signed as such on inventory tags along the ramp, but I will attempt to field verify this. I do know the BGS signage for this exit on northbound I-405 indicates Kerby Ave, which is where the ramp's name likely... | |
| 7 | 2015-07-30 04:37:43 UTC | Peter Dobratz | The general convention is to leave the name tag off of the Way object for the highway=motorway_link. Instead, this same information is put onto the Node where the motorway_link leaves the motorway in the form of highway=motorway_junction with an exit_to tag. This has already been done for this are... | |
| 8 | 2015-07-31 05:24:57 UTC | Peter Dobratz | There's some discussion about ramps currently happening on the talk-us email mailing list:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-July/015121.html | |
| 9 | 2015-08-24 00:34:55 UTC | Peter Dobratz | I happened to drive by here today. As you are exiting I-405 North, there is a sign that says "Kerby Av Exit Only". After you exit, there is a sign that says "Kerby Ave." On the way back as you are entering the on-ramp, there is a sign that says "Fremont Br =>". B... | |
| 10 | 2015-08-24 06:47:24 UTC | Paul Johnson | no name or Fremont Freeway would be acceptable values for the name to me. destination=Kerby Avenue is a possible value for the offramp. | |
| 11 | 2015-08-24 22:26:33 UTC | Bickendan | Fremont Freeway would be an incorrect designation. It'd either be an extension of the Stadium Freeway or part of the cancelled Prescott Freeway. If Kerby Ave Ramp is not a designation we want to use, then it should revert to being blank. Related: Exit 2 westbound I-84 and Exit 3 eastbound I-84. ... | |
| 12 | 2015-08-24 22:59:26 UTC | Paul Johnson | WA 500 is pretty similar in it's present design and function to Milwaukie Expressway OR 223 and Mount Hood Highway US 26 where it's dual carriage way, or really take a grab at almost any midwestern dual carriageway trunk. Only real difference is WA 500 is in an urban setting. People don't expect a... | |
| 13 | 2015-08-24 23:19:27 UTC | Paul Johnson | Basically, the distinction is anything that you're likely to find in the Interstate Freeway System is a motorway. If there's any substantial deviation from that (lack of median, at-grade intersections, not freeway-like speed limits and similar totally outside the character of a freeway things) on a... | |
| 14 | 2015-09-11 06:21:29 UTC | Peter Dobratz | http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33930044 | |
| 33208951 by dmw918 | 1 | 2015-08-21 15:55:48 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is this a four-way stop? If so, the intersecting node should be highway=stop. Otherwise, there should be a highway=stop node on the way closest to the stop bar or sign. The neighborhood south of TU has a lot of good examples. |
| 32255900 by Bickendan | 1 | 2015-07-08 18:40:26 UTC | Paul Johnson | Trying to work out why any part of US 26 remotely qualifies as a trunk, which would generally be typified by a limited access route; in this case, the Ross Island Bridge really should be primary and connected by a series of primary_link to anything that isn't a ramp directly attached to Naito Parkwa... |
| 2 | 2015-07-08 20:53:34 UTC | Bickendan | Considering the Ross Island Bridge has the highest non-freeway speed limit crossing the Willamette and has interchanges on both sides of the river (OR 99E on the eastside, OR 10, 43, 99W and [indirectly] I-5 on the westside), it does make sense to flag the bridge and its approaches as a trunk instea... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-09 14:02:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | First part makes a compelling case for a trunk between 99W and 99E, with the cutoff being, either Milwaukie or 21st. | |
| 4 | 2015-07-11 21:21:26 UTC | Paul Johnson | Well, if we're going to have US 26 east of Naito and west of East 2x as trunk, might as well make the links match. | |
| 5 | 2015-07-21 01:14:25 UTC | Grant Humphries | What's your thought process in switching way 160254307 from 'motorway_link' to 'motorway'? | |
| 6 | 2015-07-21 01:38:47 UTC | Bickendan | This ramp is defined by ODOT as the I-84/US 30 mainline (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/rics/docs/NumRouteMap_enl.pdf), and it's noted in the Thomas Guide maps as such. | |
| 7 | 2015-07-21 04:46:45 UTC | Paul Johnson | We use a functional classification, not necessarily what DOT calls it, though. I think most people would call this a ramp. | |
| 8 | 2015-07-21 05:10:01 UTC | Paul Johnson | OpenStreetMap uses a functional classification, which doesn't always jibe with what the DOT thinks. I wouldn't assume the connectors that terminate the west end of the Banfield Freeway to be the mainline of anything whatsoever, Banfield ends there; the mainline would be the Eastbank Freeway at this... | |
| 9 | 2015-07-21 05:18:10 UTC | Bickendan | It's also striving for a consistency with how the Thomas Guide depicted the interchanges, which marked the US 30 mainlines through the interchanges with I-405, I-5/405 and I-5/I-84 as mainline freeway because the US 30 shield wouldn't appear on each consecutive segment as it transferred freeways. I ... | |
| 10 | 2015-07-21 05:35:02 UTC | Paul Johnson | I believe this actually gives your argument even *less* basis, mostly because that implicitly suggests intentionally attempting to duplicate Thomas Guide and MapQuest. We're not trying to map other maps, we're not trying to tag for the renderers, we're trying to map what's actually out there. Just... | |
| 11 | 2015-07-21 19:04:12 UTC | Grant Humphries | I can see the logic behind both cases that are being made, and I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, way: 23629712 is still tagged as motorway_link and should match whatever the consensus is arrived at for the tagging of 356882078 and 160254307. That's what originally drew my attentio... | |
| 12 | 2015-07-21 19:26:23 UTC | Bickendan | Thanks for that catch. Until a formal decision is made, I've set that final way to motorway to match the rest of the US 30 ways through the interchange. | |
| 13 | 2015-07-21 20:49:31 UTC | Paul Johnson | Considering that the ramps from the Eastbank Freeway to mile 0 of the Banfield Freeway were motorway_link for at least several years before, I'm curious if there are any arguments stronger than "some copyrighted map shows it different". | |
| 32574846 by OkBankruptcy | 1 | 2015-07-12 06:04:04 UTC | Paul Johnson | opening_hours and phone number are in the wrong formats; please check the wiki. Additionally, your office probably is not in the middle of a parking lot; put it in the correct location, please. |
| 2 | 2015-07-12 06:19:34 UTC | OkBankruptcy | Paul, I will make an effort to correct the hours and phone number. My office is most assuredly in the precise location indicated on the map. I have marked the ENTRY to the building that contains several business. It would be deceptive or confusing to visitors to mark it elsewhere in the office com... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-12 06:54:37 UTC | Paul Johnson | Did the office complex get bulldozed and rebuilt? Against the aerial imagery available, it appears to be on a grassy island in the parking lot. It's preferential to be on the location (not the entrance); check out the indoor mapping article in the wiki. | |
| 4 | 2015-07-12 07:04:37 UTC | OkBankruptcy | The complex is comprised of several new buildings, including mine. Construction was completed only recently. I direct your attention to other aerial maps of this location, e.g., Google Maps, Apple Maps. The front entry is located as designated. I suppose I could move the marker a few yards to th... | |
| 5 | 2015-07-12 18:13:21 UTC | Paul Johnson | Keep in mind aerial photography from sources that are not in the public domain (such as Apple and Google) cannot be used for OpenStreetMap. | |
| 15287623 by dufekin | 1 | 2015-07-09 07:12:56 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm a little stumped on where Bluffs and Braggs stations are coming from...I can't seem to find anything station-like around Bluffs... |
| 31538828 by dufekin | 1 | 2015-05-29 12:23:42 UTC | Paul Johnson | I'm a little confused about what was being done here. |
| 2 | 2015-06-08 09:29:45 UTC | Paul Johnson | Not sure what happened on 4th Street, but it seems to be borked compared to before; the no lane change spot was already tagged out and the geometry's no longer right from Frisco to Denver... | |
| 31595651 by Daniel Segard Âû | 1 | 2015-05-30 23:53:50 UTC | Paul Johnson | This requires two greetings.Welcome to OpenStreetMap! I see you're mapping in an area I monitor. This may require mapping as a site relation with more detail mapping for the areas within. I'll try reaching out to them soon to work with the management there to get the detail mapping right (as ... |
| 31404774 by SquirrelZero | 1 | 2015-05-25 04:25:41 UTC | Paul Johnson | Did the roads line up with GPX, or was aerial the only available information? |
| 2 | 2015-05-25 17:48:11 UTC | SquirrelZero | the roads and intersections were shifted from the imagery but not uniformly, in a somewhat small area. Additionally, things like intersections were off - some didn't have even the same shape as the imagery. Pretty much all of the streets in the surrounding area lined up perfectly with the imagery (u... | |
| 31071180 by POkRZRBK | 1 | 2015-05-21 21:02:47 UTC | Paul Johnson | Instead of highway=residential, name=Pvt Drive, try this instead:highway=serviceaccess=private(don't include any name tag).Also please be aware that abbreviations in names are frowned on as automated systems can't expand abbreviations reliably, but can render abbreviations from full word... |
| 28387753 by Darrell_pdxbuildings | 1 | 2015-05-08 12:24:36 UTC | Paul Johnson | For my own attempts at similar efforts in my new homeland, I'm curious where this data was sourced and how it was conflated into OSM. |
| 2 | 2015-05-12 21:45:13 UTC | Darrell_pdxbuildings | I did this as a mostly-manual add, but the addresses were derived from the building and address data that we had from Metro's RLIS. It's part of the building and address import here: https://github.com/pdxosgeo/pdxbldgimport/One of the steps we have is to not add buildings that intersect somethi... | |
| 29862533 by DanPendergast | 1 | 2015-04-07 01:09:06 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is this a RV park or a trailer park or is it both? |
| 2 | 2015-04-18 03:09:24 UTC | DanPendergast | Both! | |
| 29640559 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2015-03-23 22:59:24 UTC | Grant Humphries | Hi Paul,I've added the streets that run over the Tilikum Crossing back in as separate features from this rail lines as I could not find documentation of a firm convention either way for this and having them separated is critical to what we do at TriMet. Do you have any issues with this?Also... |
| 2 | 2015-03-25 11:17:02 UTC | Paul Johnson | Where the way is one lane wide and the rails are congruent with the way, it shouldn't be a problem to have the tags for both to share a single way. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the routes in the TriMet system as they lay at the moment. | |
| 21453508 by Jbeeler | 1 | 2015-03-08 19:46:31 UTC | Paul Johnson | This really seems like this might have been a personal map rather than something that was intended to be shared globally. Some things here don't make sense if you're looking for amenities. Do you need help cleaning this up for more universal usefulness? |
| 29293626 by andrewpmk | 1 | 2015-03-06 21:51:41 UTC | Paul Johnson | Nice catch, reminds me to map out the driveways and check the neighborhood since I know it could use a little work through there. |
| 26831777 by Paul Johnson | 1 | 2015-02-23 20:17:40 UTC | Bryce C Nesbitt | Is this really two distinct bicycle repair stations at PDX? They are quite close at 53 meters apart as mapped. Do you know the brand= or the opening_hours=? |
| 2 | 2015-02-24 04:10:25 UTC | Paul Johnson | Yes, the volume of cyclists arriving or departing at PDX is relatively large for most cities, as nobody drives a car, there's too much motor traffic, and there's nonstop flights to Amsterdam. I imagine legal weed in Oregons probably going to slow that a bit. One is outside between a smoking area a... | |
| 3 | 2015-02-24 04:35:51 UTC | Bryce C Nesbitt | Do you know the brand? Dero and Bike FixStation are common. | |
| 4 | 2015-02-24 04:41:08 UTC | Paul Johnson | No idea. Given that they kind of looked like something the city sign shop would improvise, and they're painted the same DOT pale green as the overpasses and the (city improvised, but now world famous) Portland staple racks. | |
| 28897413 by Cox Media | 1 | 2015-02-17 04:26:03 UTC | Paul Johnson | Reverting this change as it's brigning nothing to the table. Check the wiki for the right way to do whatever it was you were trying to do. |
| 22130198 by CharleyD | 1 | 2015-02-10 10:36:18 UTC | Paul Johnson | Please refrain from setting names on ways that do not have names. US 64 is a ref, not a name, and was already properly tagged. |
| 27706808 by Peter Dobratz | 1 | 2014-12-27 01:40:23 UTC | Paul Johnson | Thanks for this fixup. Would be nice if Metro would give some proper route numbers to the member routes in this network and call the walking part different from the biking part so they can be logically mapped. I may be asking for too much out of the ground truth, realistically... |
| 27559662 by flippmoke | 1 | 2014-12-20 22:28:34 UTC | Paul Johnson | Eeeeh, I'd say Bixby is more of a "suburb" and Coweta's the small end of a "town." Wagoner County classifies Coweta as a "town". |
| 27113973 by brianegge | 1 | 2014-11-30 12:29:58 UTC | emacsen | This is very clearly an automated edit, and subject to the Mechanical Edit Policy:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_PolicyThis edit doesn't appear to be documented or discussed. |
| 2 | 2014-11-30 12:47:19 UTC | emacsen | This changeset is reverted in changeset 27130625 | |
| 3 | 2014-12-01 21:12:54 UTC | Paul Johnson | Plus it seems like "chicken" would be a more established tag. | |
| 23076059 by Jim Grisham | 1 | 2014-11-30 19:10:18 UTC | Paul Johnson | The name=* tags on this changeset sound suspiciously like a conflation of ref=* and description=*. Please don't do that: The name should only be the name, not ref, direction, description or other qualities. |
| 14356179 by oldtopos | 1 | 2014-11-30 19:06:18 UTC | Paul Johnson | Is Trinity Parkway actually happening? Last I heard, TXDOT was scrapping it as it was too close to the 183 Freeway to do anything other than increase congestion at it's interchanges and reduce usable space downtown. |
| 26995018 by sukhovvitya | 1 | 2014-11-29 00:03:42 UTC | Paul Johnson | Thanks for the translation. In the future, please use useful changeset comments, such as "adding Russian translation". |
| 26925825 by dieterdreist | 1 | 2014-11-26 20:47:51 UTC | Paul Johnson | You may want to get in contact with the original user and see if you can't get a more exact location on him. |
| 2 | 2014-11-27 10:57:00 UTC | dieterdreist | Yes, I have tried to do so, but have not gotten any reply so far. This would only help to get the address though, I am not sure that a private person offering some hours of mathematics repetition is enough to be on the map, at least there is no common tagging at the moment, and the name-tag surely i... | |
| 3 | 2014-11-27 21:35:20 UTC | Paul Johnson | Very good point. | |
| 10144559 by NinjaSeg | 1 | 2014-11-22 22:07:53 UTC | Paul Johnson | You can probably demote MN 210 to secondary as it's a state highway. |