| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 160187400 by Mashin @ 2024-12-11 22:26 | 1 | 2024-12-23 01:59 | Joseph R P ♦382 | Do innocuous changes like those which you have reverted actually need to be discussed beforehand? I don't see how changing frivolous bits of road (I'm talking less than a quarter mile long each) to fix highway connectivity or indicate that a very short highway segment does not meet OSM... |
| 2 | 2024-12-23 10:03 | Mashin | Hi Joseph,sorry, I know that this feels frustrating, but it is certainly not about all edits to OSM. Road network is a bit of a special case. Not so long ago the road classification in US was a mess until quite long discussion and difficult agreement happened. Jnighan was part of that discussion f... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-24 04:20 | Joseph R P ♦382 | I considered reaching out to jnighan at first before hesitating and ultimately deciding against it because I figured it would not be productive to converse with another person over some few hundred feet of roadway on the map. That's not reaching out to any community (just one person who has doc... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-24 17:15 | jnighan ♦123 | Hi, Joseph! Thanks for the replies and direct message. In 2022, I created a classification system based on community input and other models for CT (link at bottom of comment). Mashin has been a great partner in alerting users that we do in fact have a system in place, and edits should be in keeping ... | |
| 5 | 2024-12-24 17:19 | jnighan ♦123 | Here's the link to the classification page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification | |
| 6 | 2024-12-24 18:02 | Joseph R P ♦382 | In response to the classification of side streets which connect primary roads to motorways—I classified it as primary not with the expectation that it wouldn't be properly navigated by routing systems if tagged lower than primary, but rather from the standpoint that if the section of road... | |
| 7 | 2024-12-25 18:41 | jnighan ♦123 | Hi,Re: classification gaps, I think this makes sense. I will add a note about this type of mapping on the wiki page, and I'll start working on it. Feel free to do the same. I'll add text on the wiki page saying very short gaps (use reasonable judgement) on side streets between motorway... | |
| 8 | 2024-12-25 18:59 | jnighan ♦123 | I added a paragraph to this section:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification#Motorway | |
| 9 | 2024-12-27 01:03 | Joseph R P ♦382 | Thank you for adding the paragraph regarding these classification gaps and clarifying the reasons for the other roadways' classifications. | |
| 10 | 2025-12-01 21:21 | ZLima12 ♦285 | Generally, in cases like the I-91/CT-159 interchange, I feel that it is better to not change the classification of the connecting road (Meadow Road in this case). The ground truth is that CT-159 is the primary road, and you have to get off onto a side street to access it. If we tag the side street a... | |
| 174776665 by Mashin @ 2025-11-17 15:08 | 1 | 2025-11-23 02:26 | RobMcC85 ♦1 | These changes should not be reverted. Portions of Oak Street and Hickory Street do not exist. Avenue C, D and E do not exist; one might be a driveway.I tried to run this area and can confirm the south end of Oak Street is a lawn and woods; the northern/middle section of Hickory Street is woods, ... |
| 2 | 2025-11-23 23:22 | Mashin | Sorry, I haven't inspected the changeset properly. | |
| 172635521 by Mashin @ 2025-09-29 23:11 | 1 | 2025-09-30 19:24 | stevea ♦315 | Thanks, Mashin, for fixing up my tagging. I was a bit hasty entering this, looks nice now. |
| 170608022 by Mashin @ 2025-08-18 10:18 | 1 | 2025-08-19 01:35 | Dean Batchelder ♦1 | I totally understand this, and it is okay to keep these trails as paths, but the trails labeled as cycleways are mountain biking trails with mountain biking features and primarily mountain bikers riding them. It is totally fine to keep these labeled as simply paths, but it is dangerous for walkers w... |
| 2 | 2025-08-19 06:57 | Mashin | Hi, from what I know cycleways are considered more for "urban" cycling infrastructure and having cycleways in the middle of a forest would be misleading. Also I've seen that some of them have hiking difficulty scale tags which tell that those are used by hikers as well.When it com... | |
| 3 | 2025-08-20 22:49 | Dean Batchelder ♦1 | Alright, thank you for letting me know. These trails are not endorsed, but do exist on various mountain biking websites and such. You are totally correct - I do feel like a cycleway might more refer to urban greenways. Even though I agree these trails should be marked as paths, I wish there was a wa... | |
| 113974011 by Mashin @ 2021-11-19 05:23 | 1 | 2025-07-11 18:05 | Hb- ♦307 | Where is the benefit for tagging simple areas of water as multipolygon instead of a closed way? The amount of nodes is the same and the amount of ways is similar. Big disadvantage is the costly computation, especially on handheld devices. |
| 2 | 2025-07-11 19:38 | Mashin | Hi,Any particular examples? As far as I know I wasn't creating any new objects and majority of edits were changing tags. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-11 20:22 | Hb- ♦307 | no. It was only a general remark on multipolygons. | |
| 4 | 2025-07-12 11:20 | Mashin | I believe that if the multipolygon relation has only a single member (which is the outer way) then is should be deled and the tags moved to the closed way. | |
| 98474823 by Mashin @ 2021-02-01 03:24 | 1 | 2025-07-06 08:32 | Tomas_J ♦312 | Ahoj, priechod footway=crossig kresli na mape iba tam kde vidis na ortofoto zebru. Napr. priechod way 902508489 si nakreslil cca 10 x dlhsi nez v skutocnosti je. Opravim. Dik. |
| 2 | 2025-07-07 06:47 | Mashin | Diki za upozornenie ale to bol niekto iny.https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/902508489 | |
| 153692501 by Mashin @ 2024-07-08 08:43 | 1 | 2025-04-23 00:09 | diamondarmorsteve ♦60 | Eh... they could still be permissive. Permissive is when something is privately owned, access is granted by default, but the owner has every right to deny access at will. |
| 2 | 2025-04-23 07:17 | Mashin | That's true, could also be permissive. | |
| 165061904 by Mashin @ 2025-04-17 09:22 | 1 | 2025-04-18 10:04 | Zack Bowden ♦6 | Thanks for fixing that, it looks a lot nicer than what I did, lol |
| 2 | 2025-04-18 20:37 | Mashin | Hey! You are doing a great job Zack! I really appreciate the patience you put into drawing these land covers.Just in this case I saw that the lakes were supposed to be part of the Wildlife area, but not a part of the forest. And the only way was to re-draw the wood polygon.Also at this point... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-19 04:18 | Zack Bowden ♦6 | Thank you :D And that makes sense, tbhAnd I haven't done much with JOSM before, but it looks interesting, and I do want to try it out and play around with it sometime :) | |
| 125494366 by Mashin @ 2022-08-28 20:33 | 1 | 2024-10-28 23:23 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,070 | FYI - you can connect paths over water, just make sure you use bridge/tunnel, as appropriate... |
| 2 | 2024-10-28 23:23 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,070 | actually, it appears it was the edit before this one. :) | |
| 148145181 by Mashin @ 2024-03-02 20:12 | 1 | 2024-03-03 00:49 | quincylvania ♦69 | Hi Mashin 👋I see you're removing trail names from ways that are already present on trail relations. I fear this is a nonstandard pattern with spotty support. Most maps and routing engines will not show labels for these trails, including the default osm-carto style. As such, I recommend rev... |
| 2 | 2024-03-03 15:49 | Mashin | Hi Quincy,It's a mix of both. There are name tags that are truly descriptive and not an actual name e.g. red trail. The other names are just a duplicate of what is already in the hiking relation and creates just a duplicate when name searching. This is actually quite common way of mapping hik... | |
| 3 | 2024-03-04 02:34 | TomPar ♦123 | Mashin, can you point to any other mappers in CT or elsewhere in New England/NY that are actively removing accurate names from paths/footways to support your assertion: "quite common way of mapping hiking routes". I have been involved in multiple threads over multiple years of people comp... | |
| 4 | 2024-03-04 08:17 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,738 | I would rather focus on whether paths are themself having names.If they have then removing names is wrong (and I heard from multiple USA mappers that in USA path commonly are named after hiking route using them).If they do not have names then adding names to them is deliberate mistagging for... | |
| 5 | 2024-03-06 16:13 | ElliottPlack ♦933 | Mashin,It is fine to leave the trail names even if you've added a relation. I find it destructive and counter productive to remove them. Here are some precedential examples:1. [Queen's Loop @ Bryce Canyon NP](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/650406545). The most popular hiking tra... | |
| 134827477 by Mashin @ 2023-04-12 16:59 | 1 | 2023-04-13 01:30 | a_runner ♦4 | Maybe, Im missing something, but why cant these trails have the name in the relation AND in the trail name? The Hop River State Park trail to the north has a Name Tag and Relation, so why cant these trails have it too? This is the official map from DEEP: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/stateparks... |
| 2 | 2023-04-13 16:23 | a_runner ♦4 | After doing some reading, I see where my mistake was. I found documentation saying that the name tag "should not describe or label the feature" and should instead be the common name of the feature. So although it seemed counterproductive to me, it now makes sense that the blaze color shoul... | |
| 3 | 2023-04-15 08:51 | Mashin | Hi, I can see the good motivation behind this, but those maps made a choice not to show the hiking trails and using name= tag for this purpose is kind of like hacking the information in. This will then also cause problems for other maps that do not expect this. Generally there is a rule 'one fe... | |
| 4 | 2024-03-06 01:57 | ezekielf ♦87 | Forum discussion about this here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/trails-use-name-and-or-hiking-route/110106 | |
| 146137585 by Mashin @ 2024-01-11 10:47 | 1 | 2024-01-18 20:20 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,738 | have you edited based on local knowledge or other indicator that path itself has no name?Also, in future remember to add source of edit (note that it is missing also on say https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102658003 ) |
| 102658003 by Mashin @ 2021-04-09 16:33 | 1 | 2024-01-18 20:19 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,738 | You removed name from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423006651/history in this edithave you edited based on local knowledge or other indicator that path itself has no name?Also, in future remember to add source of edit (note that it is missing also on say https://www.openstreetmap.org/cha... |
| 126325452 by Mashin @ 2022-09-18 10:25 | 1 | 2023-10-30 15:07 | andrewsuzuki ♦100 | I think way 29373850 (Naugatuck River outline) should stop where it meets the Housatonic in Derby? Currently it extends a few miles south. My computer is broken at the moment so I can't fix it very easily :) |
| 2 | 2023-10-30 21:23 | Mashin | That's a good point. River areas are not supposed not even have names, those should be only on waterway=river/stream lines.I removed the name from the relation that had the way as outer member. | |
| 130241670 by Mashin @ 2022-12-19 10:12 | 1 | 2023-05-25 14:26 | jnighan ♦123 | Hi, some ways with waterway=dam were added that aren't good fits for the criteria associated with that tag. I've changed some to man_made=embankment or waterway=weir |
| 2 | 2023-05-27 18:21 | Mashin | Thanks, I just guess what it is from the imagery. | |
| 135464201 by Mashin @ 2023-04-28 11:11 | 1 | 2023-04-30 02:18 | ZeLonewolf ♦574 | Should Pawcatuck be a proper admin boundary or is it only a CDP? |
| 2 | 2023-04-30 02:19 | ZeLonewolf ♦574 | Oh, I guess it's just part of Stonington. | |
| 3 | 2023-04-30 09:03 | Mashin | It should just be a CDP | |
| 125496285 by Mashin @ 2022-08-28 21:33 | 1 | 2023-04-21 20:58 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,070 | Why did you change the cartpaths that were correctly mapped into service roads without the cartpath tags?Such as:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/587935762/historyThese should be changed back to cartpaths with path tags. |
| 2 | 2023-04-21 22:15 | Mashin | They had golf_cart=designated access tag, which indicates who can use them. I feel like the not approved golf=cartpath was just created by TGC mappers for their own purpose. | |
| 112597588 by Mashin @ 2021-10-17 04:10 | 1 | 2023-03-22 23:50 | JackNUMBER ♦10 | Salut, j'ai l'impression que les nœuds 9177441989 et 9177441988 de ce changeset sont mal placés. |
| 2 | 2023-03-23 19:14 | Mashin | Thanks for catching those. I have no idea how could that have happened. | |
| 131399692 by Mashin @ 2023-01-17 23:39 | 1 | 2023-01-18 03:12 | E1892 ♦2 | Hi there, I am new here. I removed several roads/trails from OSM today because they are on private land. It looks like you have restored them to the map. This makes them appear on AllTrails, and encourages hikers. How do we get them removed?Many thanks. |
| 113503616 by Mashin @ 2021-11-08 04:40 | 1 | 2022-11-23 10:33 | maraf24 ♦5,330 | You didn't check if river is actually a river. Seehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/794273139/history |
| 2 | 2022-11-23 11:18 | Mashin | Oh boy, you're right!Fixed that here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129277340Though it seems that waterpark needs some love. Some of the slides are even tagged as water drains. I think more appropriate would be something like:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:attraction%... | |
| 84582047 by Mashin @ 2020-05-03 21:39 | 1 | 2022-08-22 15:54 | andrewsuzuki ♦100 | Check out note 3244011 when you have a chance. It renders fine in openstreetmap-carto but not OsmAnd. I don't know much about tagging boundaries but it seems like there are two boundaries for New Haven? 270191 and 11065393. |
| 2 | 2022-08-22 17:19 | Mashin | I can also see the same issue in OsmAnd. After poking around it seems to me that the most likely cause will be that the boundary in this place is using a part of coastline (www.openstreetmap.org/way/41744416). This seems more like a bug on the OsmAnd side. We can always duplicate the way and use it... | |
| 3 | 2022-08-22 17:42 | andrewsuzuki ♦100 | I see, thanks. There are a lot of coastline-related issues on the OsmAnd github but nothing really matches this case. I'll open a new issue | |
| 4 | 2022-08-22 18:09 | Mashin | That's great, thanks! | |
| 124926160 by Mashin @ 2022-08-15 12:28 | 1 | 2022-08-15 12:51 | SomeoneElse ♦13,566 | Thanks |
| 110398400 by Mashin @ 2021-08-29 03:07 | 1 | 2022-08-14 17:24 | andrewsuzuki ♦100 | FYI Most (~80%) "congregational" churches in CT, such as way 206954336, can be tagged as united_church_of_christ (UCC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ#History |
| 2 | 2022-08-14 21:38 | Mashin | Nice. Thanks for the info! | |
| 110882705 by Mashin @ 2021-09-07 23:41 | 1 | 2022-04-29 16:36 | mariotomo ♦1,903 | hi. I was reviewing the osmose reports for Panama, and I noticed a whole series of "Same wikipedia topic on other language". OSMCha also warns about "Deleted a wikidata/wikipedia tag" and "Invalid tag modification".hopefully you have time to review your work even if i... |
| 2 | 2022-04-29 17:44 | Mashin | Removed a wikipedia tag. Maybe that was it. | |
| 3 | 2022-04-29 18:40 | mariotomo ♦1,903 | possibly, I don't check osmose every week, and its refresh cycle is also rather slow. thank you for the fix! | |
| 120358695 by Mashin @ 2022-04-29 17:42 | 1 | 2022-04-29 18:38 | mariotomo ♦1,903 | :+1: :-) |
| 118177208 by Mashin @ 2022-03-06 23:03 | 1 | 2022-03-07 01:06 | S-zation ♦118 | Why did you revert this? Following your own source and ConnDOT maps, CT 82 is a "minor arterial" from CT 9 to Saybrook Road. It does not meet expressway classification.https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/fcl/pdf/060fcl.pdf |
| 2 | 2022-03-07 04:53 | Mashin | Sorry, there was a recent road reclassification in CT and I am just trying to prevent it from getting mixed up again. Maybe you are right. Try asking Jack (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jnighan) what he thinks about that. | |
| 3 | 2022-03-07 05:06 | S-zation ♦118 | Ok, I'll send him a message | |
| 4 | 2022-03-09 00:08 | jnighan ♦123 | I think this should be tagged highway=motorway_link and oneway=no, rather than motorway (as it is tagged), trunk (as it was changed to), or secondary (as the CTDOT scheme would have it tagged). The documentation for motorway links allows for this, and this road serves no purpose besides entering/exi... | |
| 5 | 2022-03-09 05:13 | S-zation ♦118 | Motorway_link makes the most sense to me because the road is essentially serves as a long on/off ramp for route 9. The only reason I would be hesitant is because I've never seen an example of a such a long motorway_link for a 2+1 road | |
| 107595352 by Mashin @ 2021-07-08 02:30 | 1 | 2022-03-01 02:08 | GRailMapper ♦8 | please do not remove abandoned railway tagging. The information is used by OpenRailwayMap to locate former lines even when the tracks are gone |
| 117373881 by Mashin @ 2022-02-14 01:40 | 1 | 2022-02-16 07:13 | Greg_Rose ♦176 | Hi Mashin - As you may remember, after extended discussion on the OSMUS Slack #trails channel late last year, there was overwhelming consensus (9 to 2) that removing the Name tag from a way simply because it's a member of a named relation is not desirable. Yet you are once again deleting trail ... |
| 2 | 2022-02-16 15:05 | Mashin | Sorry I was restoring some of the relations that you deleted before and in the process I converted some blazed trails to relations. But moved all the information to relation so there is on data loss. | |
| 117366407 by Mashin @ 2022-02-13 19:18 | 1 | 2022-02-16 07:15 | Greg_Rose ♦176 | Please see comments for changeset 117373881. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117366407 |
| 117367085 by Mashin @ 2022-02-13 19:44 | 1 | 2022-02-16 07:14 | Greg_Rose ♦176 | Please see comments for changeset 117373881. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117367085 |
| 117371210 by Mashin @ 2022-02-13 22:19 | 1 | 2022-02-16 07:14 | Greg_Rose ♦176 | Please see comments for changeset 117373881 --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117371210 |
| 115615338 by Mashin @ 2021-12-31 16:05 | 1 | 2022-01-01 00:10 | Greg_Rose ♦176 | So you're just going to delete the trail names with no discussion, not even 24 hours after I edited? Not cool - at all.I'm taking the names from DEEP - these are the names of the trails according to THE authoritative source. What is YOUR source for the changes you made? |
| 2 | 2022-01-01 00:19 | Greg_Rose ♦176 | I take it back - the names are coming from the CFPA (www.ctwoodlands.org). Do you not consider them authoritative? | |
| 3 | 2022-01-01 16:43 | Mashin | "The Green Trail" etc. are definitely not official names.Also would you mind including source of you data to your changesets? You are adding peaks with elevation and names, deleting existing hiking relations, adding stream names... which clearly couldn't come from Strava layer. | |
| 4 | 2022-01-01 20:52 | Greg_Rose ♦176 | So much to deal with here.... a) You seem to know that those "are definitely not official names", yet fail to name your source for that knowledge. In this same change you deleted the name of the Pond Mountain NA "Entry Trail", despite it clearly being the official name (ww... | |
| 5 | 2022-01-04 17:47 | Mashin | I hiked those trails many times. There are no such names posted anywhere, no one knows or uses those names. You are just adding stuff from various online sources without knowing anything about the local situation.Look, I spent weeks cleaning trails in CT and building hiking relations which is a ... | |
| 113674960 by Mashin @ 2021-11-12 01:53 | 1 | 2021-11-13 22:34 | DaveF ♦1,590 | HiDid you mean to tag this as rough?https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13431264 |
| 2 | 2021-11-13 23:53 | Mashin | I think I just assumed, because this little area was tagged as fairway.https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13431265 | |
| 113392918 by Mashin @ 2021-11-05 04:18 | 1 | 2021-11-07 13:41 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,738 | Ideally, names wuld be also removed from water areas |
| 2 | 2021-11-07 15:57 | Mashin | Oh I was not sure if there was some sort of local agreement on keeping those names on areas since so many rivers have it like that. Ok, I'll be removing those. Thanks | |
| 27990137 by Mashin @ 2015-01-08 04:48 | 1 | 2021-10-26 14:52 | aceman444 ♦2,743 | Zdravim, tie cesticky ako https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/221441062 maju naozaj take dlhe nazvy? Je k tomu nejaky oficialny zdroj? Alebo su to len ich opisy. Do nazvu 'name' totiz patria len skutocne mena objektov, vlastne mena, nie opisy ani vyjadrenie typu objektu (napr. name=cesta). |
| 2 | 2021-10-26 15:05 | Mashin | Urcite nie su oficialnehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16135182 | |
| 112860512 by Mashin @ 2021-10-23 01:07 | 1 | 2021-10-24 05:32 | Tomas Straupis ♦2,002 | Hello, please do not reduce the quality of existing tagging. iD editor is giving incorrect advices. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cartography/Waterways |
| 111174115 by Mashin @ 2021-09-14 05:05 | 1 | 2021-09-14 16:05 | mariotomo ♦1,903 | Hola Mashin! would you mind having a closer look at "river" Guigalá near node 2516873790? I just added a road, crossing the river there, and while in Bing it looks like a ford, Maxar gives me the impression that the intersection is now implemented as a culvert. still a "rive... |
| 2 | 2021-09-14 16:37 | Mashin | This one is hard without an actual survey. Trees along Guigalá are too thick to see how wide the river is.Since the nearby river Escarrea is wide enough to see that it is a wide river I would lean more towards classifying Guigalá as a stream, but that is hard with this type of imag... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-25 22:23 | mariotomo ♦1,903 | I see that in this changeset you have also "fixed" Río Chevo, in the sense that you did indeed fix the spelling of "Rio" into "Río", but would you review the course? it makes very little sense to me. I don't know how to behave here. | |
| 4 | 2021-09-25 22:46 | mariotomo ♦1,903 | Mashin, do you think your team can have a look at this area? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111703174 | |
| 111203955 by Mashin @ 2021-09-14 16:13 | 1 | 2021-09-14 17:24 | mariotomo ♦1,903 | looks quite nice, thanks. do you think you can follow the Río San Juan near Calobre? and the pressurised stream?Nœud : 7435260825 |
| 96582009 by Mashin @ 2020-12-29 07:51 | 1 | 2021-07-22 10:30 | Alan Bragg ♦153 | osmc:symbol not matching symbol= on relation 12107000Not trying to be picky, just curious based on slack discussions. |
| 2 | 2021-07-22 19:15 | Mashin | it has `symbol=White rectangle`, which should be described as `white::white_stripe`. At least some sites render it correctly..I am in contact with Sarah and Nop and looking for solution for two color blazes. | |
| 100521527 by Mashin @ 2021-03-06 04:38 | 1 | 2021-03-08 11:57 | Brilej ♦1 | Hi Mashin,this cleanup was long overdue, thanks a lot for it. But IMHO you should not mix geometry improvements with retagging operations.Kind regards,Bogumil |
| 2 | 2021-03-08 18:18 | Mashin | You're right. I got carried away by the editing too much and then it was too late to split it into several changesets. Will remember for the future. | |
| 33088437 by Mashin @ 2015-08-04 06:29 | 1 | 2015-08-04 20:21 | Sei Han ♦3 | Hey Mashin, thanks for alerting me to my improper edit. How could we reattach this building to Silliman College? I've been trying to figure this out... |