| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 169086851 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 02:57 | 1 | 2025-07-18 18:33 | Joseph R P ♦356 | While US 50 being trunk is a little more justifiable, granted that its much busier these days than its reign as the "Loneliest Road in America", and links some regionally significant places like Fallon, Ely, and Delta, UT (with even more major highways and cities located west/east of this ... |
| 2 | 2025-07-19 04:44 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change them back. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-19 04:48 | Flap Slimy Outward | Remind me: Which parts of US 6 should remain trunk, and which ones should be reverted to primary again? | |
| 4 | 2025-07-19 15:05 | Joseph R P ♦356 | US 6 should most likely remain primary in Nevada for its lower connectivity and usage by traffic, except for the section between 318 and Ely, and the segments concurrent with US 95 west of Tonopah and 50/93 east of Ely. I'd also say the same for the US 93 section upgraded to trunk between C... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-19 18:56 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will downgrade them accordingly. Thanks once again! | |
| 168462036 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-03 21:42 | 1 | 2025-07-05 07:40 | btwhite92 ♦99 | Hi there,This stretch of Pyramid Hwy is significantly more important than nearby 'secondary' roads and does not belong in the same "bin". It is one of the most heavily trafficked surface arteries in the metropolitan area and is slated for an expressway upgrade soon. I understan... |
| 2 | 2025-07-05 13:05 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it back. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-05 13:17 | Joseph R P ♦356 | I would say that this is one of the rare exceptions in which a primary route can terminate with no other connections to a primary road or another highway of a higher classification, due to geographical restrictions. Traffic traveling between Reno/Sparks and Spanish Spanish Springs is funneled into P... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-05 18:18 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. I've only been to Reno once, so I'm not as familiar with its road network as I am with Las Vegas's xD.Speaking of Lake Mead Parkway and Boulevard, I did connect their primary classifications because, as you mentioned earlier, it's one of the only roads that can access Lak... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-05 18:35 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Lake Las Vegas Pkwy is the main road into the community, and as a secondary road, it would be the last major road that Lake Mead Pkwy intersects before it reaches the gate into the Lake Mead NRA. An argument for it to be extended to the gate could be made, like how the US Routes do before entering Y... | |
| 6 | 2025-07-19 05:08 | Flap Slimy Outward | Sorry I didn't see this earlier (why does Gmail mark some of these replies as "Promotional"?). I went ahead and changed all the roads I edited back to secondary. Since you upgraded Hollywood Boulevard anyway, I extended Charleston's primary designation to Hollywood Boulevard sinc... | |
| 7 | 2025-07-19 15:23 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Here's the project: https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/news/news-detail-t28-r1033The project has started, but the bridge isn't under construction yet. Currently, they're working on the first phase, which is mostly just improvements along Wiesner Way, including realigning it towards the... | |
| 8 | 2025-07-19 17:12 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go check it out. Thanks! | |
| 169081471 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-17 21:30 | 1 | 2025-07-18 18:01 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello. I think this changeset and a couple others around this area overcomplicate/confuse some road classification criteria. Usually, it is fine for motorways to meet pedestrian crossings when they terminate at an at-grade intersection, especially when that intersection is a major one that indicates... |
| 2 | 2025-07-18 21:12 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay... Well, what should be done about the dangling spur? Should this portion of US 93 Business even be considered a motorway at all? IMO, the only thing it has going for itself being a motorway is that it has two grade-separated interchanges. There are no "Freeway entrance" or "Free... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-18 23:39 | Joseph R P ♦356 | If the spur you're referring to is 93 Business—motorway spurs are perfectly fine as it's a physical construction-based classification rather than an importance-based one. There are many examples of this throughout the country, like I 8 in San Diego, Northern Parkway in Phoenix, Earha... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-19 00:29 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright then, I guess I'll restore their old classifications. The only thing I now have against that decision is this: I read somewhere (I think on the wiki) that motorways should not share nodes with other non-motorway (link)s, as that would generate an error. I figured that they should also s... | |
| 169091788 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 06:42 | 1 | 2025-07-18 18:04 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Thank you for this road class change! This is one I have been planning to make myself for your exact reasons but never got around to doing. |
| 2 | 2025-07-18 21:18 | Flap Slimy Outward | You're welcome! I've been hesitating for a bit since its traffic volumes are a little low compared to other primary routes. But, like you mentioned on 5th Street and Lake Mead Blvd, a newly-built neighborhood won't receive much traffic anyway, and a road with relatively few AADT can s... | |
| 168575367 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-06 19:11 | 1 | 2025-07-12 16:05 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, what was the reasoning for deleting and re-mapping place nodes, such as the Goodsprings node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12983464131)? Every object in OSM has edit history stored in it. Adding '/history' to the end of a way, node, or relation ID will show every edit that any... |
| 2 | 2025-07-12 18:16 | Flap Slimy Outward | I don't recall deleting any place nodes? The Goodsprings node still exists. Sometimes, there were places nodes and boundary ways that weren't connected via a relation, so I connected them. Other times, a node existed without a boundary (like Nelson), so I created the boundary way. Other ti... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-13 17:51 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Bit of a false alarm. I apologize for jumping to conclusions here—I put two and two together since you were the last one to edit the relation and I definitely recalled there being a node at some point prior to that, and you had additionally re-created the node, which lacked the original GNIS i... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-13 18:46 | Flap Slimy Outward | It's alright! I went ahead and re-added it to the boundary relation. | |
| 168624284 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-07 21:28 | 1 | 2025-07-09 15:23 | SD Mapman ♦43 | Why were the name tags removed? They are part of the address for the road and signed as such. |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 16:56 | Flap Slimy Outward | Because "County Road x" (where x is a number) is a highway designation, not an actual name. Sometimes, the county routes have an actual name tagged in their "alt_name," which I used as their actual name. | |
| 168666744 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-08 20:14 | 1 | 2025-07-09 16:00 | SD Mapman ♦43 | This made duplicates in Weld County of Morgan County routes... automation might not be the best way forward here |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 16:06 | SD Mapman ♦43 | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mountain-west-automated-road-route-road-name-changes/132498Please join! | |
| 168466685 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-04 02:34 | 1 | 2025-07-09 01:33 | ZeLonewolf ♦559 | Are you sure about County Road 25 1/2 in Weld Co, CO?https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19320417I can't find any evidence of this existing. There is a nearby county ROAD with this number on a different alignment. |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 02:45 | Flap Slimy Outward | I didn't reroute any of the county roads, at least I don't think I did. I found it like this when I started editing the area. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-09 09:58 | ZeLonewolf ♦559 | You created version 1 of that relation... | |
| 168670575 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-08 22:41 | 1 | 2025-07-09 00:43 | Joseph R P ♦356 | For clarification, a freeway connection isn't required for a road to be primary—just criteria to consider—especially because Sahara Ave directly connects to many other important roadways along its route. D.I. Road and 5th Street for example pass right over I 15 with no direct interc... |
| 168627910 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-08 01:38 | 1 | 2025-07-08 16:40 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, while on paper it makes to have a primary route connect to I 15 from the junction south of Moapa Valley, the Valley of Fire Highway is also a park road with an entry fee used only by parkgoers for most of it route, and is not used by through traffic heading between the town and the Interstate... |
| 2 | 2025-07-08 16:44 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll revert this, too. | |
| 168584782 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-07 03:32 | 1 | 2025-07-08 16:01 | SD Mapman ♦43 | I think this made a bunch of duplicate road relations |
| 2 | 2025-07-08 16:02 | SD Mapman ♦43 | just FYI | |
| 3 | 2025-07-08 16:43 | Flap Slimy Outward | I noticed a bit too late...I'll manually check every road route relation in the county and remove the duplicates. | |
| 168576603 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-06 19:52 | 1 | 2025-07-06 20:20 | AndreaDp271 ♦57 | congratulations for making such a big changeset area, you took half the world. Please save your changes more frequently so as not to ruin the spirit of osm --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168576603 |
| 2 | 2025-07-06 21:03 | bxl-forever ♦2,490 | ⚠️ It looks like this changeset re-used several existing relations all over the world to transform them into relations for roads in Colorado.Take this one, which was a multipolygon in London (UK) up to version #5: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/332/historyOr this one was a river ... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-06 21:07 | AndreaDp271 ♦57 | Very strange, I hope it is not necessary to contact the Data Working Group | |
| 4 | 2025-07-06 21:46 | limes11 ♦896 | Not sure how this happened, but he used relations with increasing id's 1, 2, 3 etc. I mean...how often do you touch the first relation ever created :)Might be a wrong-sign error as the api expects temporary negative id's for new objects.Anyways this needs a full revert. | |
| 5 | 2025-07-06 21:58 | bxl-forever ♦2,490 | I reverted the changeset here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168579807All the relations elsewhere in the world were restored to their previous state.@Flap Slimy Outward: your work to create road relations in your area was preserved too, in most cases through new relations.The c... | |
| 6 | 2025-07-07 02:22 | Flap Slimy Outward | I apologize severely. I used Overpass Turbo and JOSM to edit them. I used a Python script to find all highways in a bounding box (in this case, Weld County) to create new road route relations. As I only had data from that box, I had no idea that I was adding these routes to different relations, so I... | |
| 7 | 2025-07-07 02:25 | Flap Slimy Outward | @limes11 It was a wrong sign error, as I completely forgot that new IDs should be saved with negative numbers. | |
| 8 | 2025-07-08 01:14 | Lumikeiju ♦102 | Thank you for providing the details on what caused the issue! :) We all make mistakes, and that's okay.Happy mapping! | |
| 168547453 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-06 06:26 | 1 | 2025-07-07 17:28 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, Northshore Road should not be a primary road. Some years ago, I upgraded it to primary for the sake of connectivity, but more recently downgraded it back to secondary as it does not serve as a primary road in the scheme of travel. It is a major roadway in a sense, being the main highway in an... |
| 2 | 2025-07-07 18:52 | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay then. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-07 19:10 | Flap Slimy Outward | In that case, why does the primary designation end at Eastgate Road in particular? | |
| 168583643 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-07 02:18 | 1 | 2025-07-07 15:31 | InsertUser ♦446 | Where was this mechanical edit discussed? |
| 2 | 2025-07-07 15:59 | iandees ♦726 | (This was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168584060) | |
| 167849751 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-20 01:51 | 1 | 2025-07-04 06:45 | Minh Nguyen ♦567 | Hi, your addition of a ref tag to the Peña Boulevard route relation is apparently causing some renderers to think this route is numbered “Peña” despite already belonging to a route network all its own. You also cited an image on Wikimedia Commons that might be misleading pe... |
| 2 | 2025-07-04 16:34 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will fix these. | |
| 168252632 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-29 07:04 | 1 | 2025-07-02 00:04 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello—it looks like a few things were broken or made more complicated in the changeset:- The sand polygon surrounding northwestern Vegas (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19087109) appears to have been broken, as it no longer renders. This could be an issue as simple as an 'inne... |
| 2 | 2025-07-02 02:03 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will fix them once I regain access to JOSM. If an entity's boundaries (say, a suburb) is defined with bi-directional roads (such as The Lakes), would it then be appropriate to tag the road as an outer part of the relation? Because the alternative—draw a new way such that it perfec... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-02 21:41 | Joseph R P ♦356 | I think it should be fine to use a bi-directional roadway (i.e. the undivided sections of roads) as a way in a boundary relation, but in a case where the roadway splits into two one-way lines (i.e. divided by a median), I'd roughly trace a new boundary in the middle—not the median exactly... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-03 01:11 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will keep this in mind next time. Thank you! | |
| 168288083 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-30 01:25 | 1 | 2025-06-30 21:08 | Joseph R P ♦356 | While it is fully grade-separated, it's very short, and technically not part of the real motorway here, which would be the Airport Connector—this part of Paradise Road branches off the terminus of the Airport Connector at the series of terminal access flyovers before the tunnel. Another r... |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 22:50 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I'll go ahead and change it back to a primary road. Thanks for the information! | |
| 168168687 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-27 06:33 | 1 | 2025-06-28 15:20 | Joseph R P ♦356 | It might be better to keep 5th Street primary here despite its relatively low AADT (when compared to east-wets routes—it still is the highest traffic north-south route through here), it actually is a very high-connectivity thoroughfare on the basis that it is the most direct north-south route ... |
| 2 | 2025-06-28 15:30 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Who even comes up with these rules anyway? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-28 16:48 | Joseph R P ♦356 | In short—the community and your own personal judgement. The rules are really just vague guidelines that are followed by local OSM communities or individuals who try to put two-and-two together based off how everyone else does it. For US road classification specifically, these are based upo... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-28 23:04 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alrighty, that's very informativea, and I appreciate it. But, if I recall correctly (edits to Washington Avenue, Bonanza Road, and Casino Center Boulevard), you told me that state highways don't actually tell people about the road's importance in the network. I could make a list of Ne... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-28 23:42 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Sorry, I should specified which kinds of designations I speak of, like NHS (National Highway System) designations. These for example are the highways that the FHWA has deemed the most important to the country logistically, usually those that links major industrial and/or transport hubs. Sometimes, h... | |
| 6 | 2025-06-29 17:28 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me again! | |
| 167967504 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-22 16:51 | 1 | 2025-06-24 19:54 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Secondary would probably be the best classification for this section, especially since this forms a straight shot connection between Charleston, Town Center, and the Beltway when it transitions to Far Hills Avenue. It does have an AADT of 10k which is low compared to most other secondary roads in th... |
| 2 | 2025-06-24 20:22 | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay then. In that case, what would happen to Alta? It sees no freeway connection whatsoever despite its connectivity to... a newly-built neighborhood? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-24 20:53 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Alta seems good as-is as well. While a freeway connection is a plus for justifying upgrading a road from tertiary to secondary, it's not necessarily required for secondary classification. Alta in its own merits should qualify for being a secondary road in that it provides a single straight shot... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-25 06:26 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I see what you're saying now. I've now restored the secondary classification to Hualapai Way. Once again, thanks for sharing this information with me! | |
| 167635437 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-15 04:20 | 1 | 2025-06-21 15:31 | Joseph R P ♦356 | These sort of roadways would be better classified as links tagged based on which roads they link to rather than as actual roads since they are ramps linking roads rather than actual named roads themselves. |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 16:34 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Well, they are classified as collector/distributor roads, which would usually be classed as tertiary roads in the US. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-21 18:08 | Joseph R P ♦356 | I think this is the conflation of two different types of roads with different purposes that simply share the same name. The most common use for "collector road" refers to the bulk of the streets tagged as tertiary in the Las Vegas Valley. The other use of "collector road" applica... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-21 21:09 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thank you for informing me! I would have never known the difference between those two types of collector/distributor roads, especially when online queries don't help at all. How could I learn such things in the future?P.S., when I search for the reference code of such a road (i.e., IR15... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-21 21:49 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Wikipedia does have an article on collector roads—when referring to the street type (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collector_road) and an article about the local/express highway configuration, which does cover collector/distributor lanes within it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local%E2%80%93e... | |
| 6 | 2025-06-22 16:27 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me! I'll check them out. | |
| 167070746 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-01 23:52 | 1 | 2025-06-11 01:02 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, expressways should not be exclusively tagged as trunk, especially short sections such as these. The expressway characteristics of this road can be indicated with the expressway=yes tag. |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 02:27 | Flap Slimy Outward | I felt like a transition between motorway, trunk, and primary would make more sense than motorway directly to primary. I would assume these expressway stubs from the end of freeways would receive more traffic than a normal primary road. Is there a specific reason why it would be better to go from mo... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-11 13:53 | Joseph R P ♦356 | My reasoning for going from motorway to primary rather than going through a sort of classification gradient would be that motorway classification is based off physical characteristics while tertiary, secondary, primary, and trunk are based off importance as a road. This means that a motorway could t... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-11 17:01 | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting. I have read somewhere on the wiki that giving motorways their own classification is technically an inconsistency, as expressways are also classified by their physical characteristics. Not to mention that expressways don't appear at all in most renderers (except AmericanaMap.org). O... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-11 19:23 | Joseph R P ♦356 | I would believe that the reason expressways aren't tagged and rendered the same way as motorways would be that it's very contentious among the community what an "expressway" is, granted that they can vary between a divided highway like US 95 north of Las Vegas/south of Boulder Ci... | |
| 6 | 2025-06-11 21:53 | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting discussion. I learned something new today! | |
| 7 | 2025-06-11 22:03 | Flap Slimy Outward | One more thing: Taking everything you said into account, why is Summerlin Parkway (West of the freeway segment) a trunk road? That's definitely something I did not do; plus, it's exactly like Lake Mead Parkway and Paradise Road: expressways tagged as trunk roads because they're the en... | |
| 8 | 2025-06-12 21:14 | Joseph R P ♦356 | That tagging scheme would have to do more with connectivity than end-of-freeway expressway tagging. Typically trunk has been used to classify those little sections of motorways through signalized interchanges to connect the ramps on the non-freeway side with the freeway (in this case, the southbound... | |
| 9 | 2025-06-13 01:10 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, thanks for informing me! | |
| 10 | 2025-06-17 17:09 | Flap Slimy Outward | Wait a second. If the 215 were to be tagged as trunk due to its importance rather than its physical characteristics, wouldn't that make Lead Mead Parkway between the 215 and Eastgate Road a trunk road as well? I'm confused; am I overthinking this? | |
| 11 | 2025-06-17 20:44 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Technically not since it's only a stub, and trunk classification here would imply that Eastgate Road is a significant destination. Current motorway to primary configuration here should be fine as-is. | |
| 12 | 2025-06-17 21:29 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks! | |
| 167380075 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-09 06:24 | 1 | 2025-06-11 15:06 | Joseph R P ♦356 | I would say that trunk classification is not the best tag for roads like these despite their widths and traffic volumes, as they are still only local roads. In an urban scenario like this, trunk classification should be applied only to major non-freeway highways that serve as major commuter routes t... |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 17:08 | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting. I did not consider the difference between local traffic and other traffic when upgrading these roads to trunk roads. I now wonder if Rainbow Boulevard would be classified as a trunk road or primary road. On the one hand, locals tend to use it more than other primary/secondary roads arou... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-11 20:29 | Joseph R P ♦356 | I have considered upgrading Rainbow Boulevard to trunk in the past as well for the reasons you stated, but ultimately I would have to believe that primary is the best classification for it. My initial considerations were its high traffic volumes and that it could be used for getting from Route 95 to... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-11 21:59 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright. I'll go ahead and fix these. | |
| 167465719 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-10 22:17 | 1 | 2025-06-11 10:37 | user_5359 ♦19,447 | Hello! Please have a look on https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/25R5. What is the mean of the tag yes = no or yes=yes? |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 16:56 | Flap Slimy Outward | I think this might have been a mistake, as I don't remember ever adding those tags. | |
| 167025013 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-31 18:50 | 1 | 2025-05-31 19:51 | Udarian ♦416 | why did you move the position of the city of Miami. |
| 2 | 2025-05-31 20:21 | Flap Slimy Outward | 1. I only moved it 2.90 meters. That's very trivial.2. I put it precisely at its "mathematical origin" (where the north–south and west–east demarcator meet each other). | |
| 166980440 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-30 16:15 | 1 | 2025-05-30 21:17 | InsertUser ♦446 | It also seems to have duplicated the Bermuda Triangle?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11845908616 |
| 2 | 2025-05-31 14:42 | Flap Slimy Outward | I can add the node and boundary to a relation. | |
| 165695297 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-01 21:42 | 1 | 2025-05-29 21:02 | skquinn ♦804 | Hi,The CVS store is both a chemist (drugstore) and a pharmacy. The pharmacy is intentionally mapped as a separate node to allow for different opening_hours as it is not open 24 hours like the drugstore portion. |
| 165396797 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-24 20:09 | 1 | 2025-05-22 18:56 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, service roads and driveways such as the road leading to the Indian Hills Apartments complex should not be tagged as primary links. The highway link tags are for unnamed roadways like exit ramps, slip lanes, or median crossovers. Additionally, the 'destination' value should only be... |
| 166452677 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-19 00:49 | 1 | 2025-05-19 02:14 | Joseph R P ♦356 | What is your reason for re-adding the 'I 11 Future' designation to this corridor? This is not a valid ref key value as the road is not officially designated or signed as such, nor would this be useful for navigation since I 11 does not yet exist here. fut_ref=* serves this purpose. |
| 2 | 2025-05-19 03:02 | Flap Slimy Outward | Because yes, Future I-11 has been signed (at those four signs that I added) and designated by the Arizona DOT. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-19 04:32 | Joseph R P ♦356 | The Future I 11 Corridor signs aren't official highway shields or designations, just signs promoting the upcoming project. Only designations like US 93 and I 40 should be signed. | |
| 166311106 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-15 15:35 | 1 | 2025-05-16 02:26 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, Lake Mead Boulevard west of Rampart most likely does not meet the criteria for primary. It sees considerably lower traffic than roads like Rampart and Cheyenne (less than 10k vs. over 20k on the other two roads) as well as less commercial development and poorer access to other neighborhoods o... |
| 2 | 2025-05-16 05:02 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I'll keep this in mind. I still find it strange how there's no primary road in Summerlin West, though that might be because it's relatively new. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-16 21:27 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Generally, not every development, such as Summerlin West, will be reached by a primary route, especially if it is primarily residential zoning and is located in a corner of the valley, thus introducing geographical circumstances for why a major intra-city arterial road does not pass through, meaning... | |
| 165093021 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-18 01:14 | 1 | 2025-05-16 02:42 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, where did you source these directional prefixes from, particularly 'Southwest Galleria Drive'? |
| 2 | 2025-05-16 05:01 | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, Galleria Drive intersects Boulder Highway, which is the west–east demarcator for this part of Henderson. Once in a residential neighborhood, Galleria Drive curves from being west–east to north–south. Since Henderson tends not to add directional prefixes to street signs, I cou... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-16 20:12 | Allison P ♦1,136 | Galleria Drive is never South or Southwest. It is West all the way to Russell. | |
| 4 | 2025-05-16 21:20 | Joseph R P ♦356 | These prefixes should not be assumed and should be added only if they're signed or officially documented in some other way like in the county GIS. Directional prefixes are not arbitrary and are part of the addresses of properties located along the road. Allison is correct that it is West Galler... | |
| 165777176 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-03 21:03 | 1 | 2025-05-04 20:57 | Glassman ♦5,247 | This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.It looks like you dragged to nodes. I have fixed them. Also, when indivi... |
| 165478521 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-26 18:32 | 1 | 2025-04-26 19:43 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Please do not use Google content as a source. osm.wiki/Google |
| 165306179 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-22 22:13 | 1 | 2025-04-24 01:17 | Joseph R P ♦356 | For future reference, roads should not be classified solely based on their width, especially if it's a very short segment of a street like this that just so happens to be very wide. This street segment would still serve as a residential road in this case. |
| 2 | 2025-04-25 06:14 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me! | |
| 164958136 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-14 21:23 | 1 | 2025-04-21 15:16 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Please do not change the surface of an under-construction roadway to anything other than its typical surface unless it has officially been permanently changed to that surface. access=no with surface=sand would imply that it is a road with a sand surface that is inaccessible for any reason while high... |
| 165000527 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-15 19:29 | 1 | 2025-04-17 02:24 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello—please do not add city labels for metro areas. The Las Vegas Valley is only a region, not a proper city, and the current Las Vegas city node already represents the core city that the metro area is sprawling off of. |
| 2 | 2025-04-21 04:33 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. (Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier.) | |
| 165007393 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-16 01:35 | 1 | 2025-04-21 01:39 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Please do not tag roads based on their classification. A state route number is merely a number in the grand scheme of things and only reflects who maintains the road as opposed to its role in the road network. Bonanza Road has less traffic than Washington Avenue and lacks a direct I 15 connection un... |
| 2 | 2025-04-21 04:33 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me. Again, where can I get sources for traffic info? I'll need to check it out before retagging roads again. Thanks once again. | |
| 165170516 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-19 20:41 | 1 | 2025-04-21 01:21 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello. 'CC 215' is the official designation for the Beltway, as it is referred to as the 'Clark County 215' rather than 'County Road 215'. Please do not make edits like these for the sake of rendering on third-party programs. |
| 2 | 2025-04-21 04:20 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thank you for informing me. I won't do it again. | |
| 164056728 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-25 01:28 | 1 | 2025-03-25 05:48 | Mxdanger ♦77 | I saw you made multiple edits to add to this relation. For big relations I highly recommend you check out JOSM! It makes relation editing very easy and quick. |
| 2 | 2025-03-25 05:50 | Flap Slimy Outward | I've seen JOSM in the edit menu, but it says I need something external, and I'm not sure what it does. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-26 22:31 | Mxdanger ♦77 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM | |
| 162791594 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-21 18:04 | 1 | 2025-02-21 23:51 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello. Please note that roads are not classified based on length but rather on the basis of connectivity with other roads and places and importance within the road network, and occasionally other factors such as traffic data and physical construction of the roadway. In this case, Smoke Ranch serves ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:49 | Flap Slimy Outward | I might need more help with tertiary roads. For instance, why is Upland Blvd a tertiary road (when it's in a residential area) but Evergreen Ave a residential road? (Yes, it's in a residential area, but it connects two or three neighborhoods. Thus, I would consider it a tertiary road east ... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-23 22:35 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Upland Blvd. is a prime example of a tertiary road in which it is not a high-capacity arterial like Alta but it sees more traffic than a typical residential street. It is wider and and has lane markings, which are often signs that a street serves as a collector road. Compare that to Evergreen Ave, w... | |
| 163465103 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-11 00:51 | 1 | 2025-03-11 05:55 | vricciardulli ♦13 | Hello, I've noticed that you are deleting some relations. For example, you deleted Las Vegas, which is not correct.Can you please not delete well-established relations? Also Henderson (R170116) should not have been deleted. Please revert. |
| 2 | 2025-03-12 17:41 | Joseph R P ♦356 | R170116 still exists, the boundaries have just been swapped with the city label role and the node itself was either moved or deleted, so the city label does not appear on the map. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-12 17:51 | Joseph R P ♦356 | I've reverted this changeset to restore the relation. I would've manually restored the city label like I did here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163537635) but I was unable to find the node in this one.I will say from experience that it is very easy to accidentally break a re... | |
| 4 | 2025-03-13 06:26 | vricciardulli ♦13 | Thank Joseph you for explaining. However, I see that the user's edits are still causing issues (again the Las Vegas relation cannot be found anymore when looking up an address and this is happening also for other places). Unfortunately I still don't understand how to fix user edits, otherw... | |
| 5 | 2025-03-14 01:41 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Looks like DWG might be taking care of it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17388 | |
| 6 | 2025-03-23 20:52 | Flap Slimy Outward | As I said before, I thought it would be better to list cities as areas rather than using points and relations. After I was emailed the consequences of this, I realized that it would make searching for cities harder, so I won't do it again. | |
| 163307254 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-07 01:49 | 1 | 2025-03-10 01:06 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, I had to revert this changeset because it appears some of the edits you made in it broke the Desert National Wildlife Refuge and Tule Springs Fossil Beds relations. I will recommend that it may be better to publish any unrelated edits you make in separate changesets so that smaller innocuous ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:50 | Flap Slimy Outward | Understood, thank you very much. When I was editing around that area, I received a warning that "[this thing] should be a closed area based on its tags." | |
| 162231227 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-07 05:16 | 1 | 2025-02-12 02:22 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, please use the 'ref=*' key for current official designations only. Future designations can be added under the 'fut_ref=*' key. For example: 'fut_ref=I 11' instead of 'ref=Future I 11'. |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:45 | Flap Slimy Outward | Thank you, understood. | |
| 161733544 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-01-25 02:39 | 1 | 2025-01-30 23:06 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, what was your reasoning for upgrading Desert Inn Road to trunk here? Trunk road classification is intended to be used for major highways, like US 95, NV 160, or NV 146, which link major population centers and/or other major highways. The correct classification for DI Road here would be primar... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:45 | Flap Slimy Outward | I did that because, between Valley View Blvd. and University Center Dr., Desert Inn Road becomes a "super arterial" and functions basically as an expressway, even though it officially isn't. I interpreted that as a "trunk road" - an "almost expressway." | |
| 163553496 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-13 04:13 | 1 | 2025-03-13 06:53 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,134 | Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17388 |
| 162913318 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-25 01:03 | 1 | 2025-02-25 01:33 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello. Motorway was the correct classification here, since this is a multi-lane highway and not just a ramp or slipway, and per the Clark County OpenWeb, the correct name for this road is 'Airport Connector'. |
| 2 | 2025-02-25 01:42 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Further note, the NV 171 designation officially ends just before the tunnel at Sunset Road, and does not extend along the I 215 ramps. | |
| 162648580 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-18 07:45 | 1 | 2025-02-21 23:57 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, Turning circles would be correct here. These half-turning circles at 90-degree street curves would be called 'knuckles', which can be specified with the 'turning_circle=knuckle' tag. |
| 162799122 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-21 23:01 | 1 | 2025-02-21 23:39 | Joseph R P ♦356 | Hello, I have reverted your changeset because 'Future I 11' is not a valid value for the 'ref=*' key, unless it is officially signed and designated.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162799791 |