Flap Slimy Outward have been discussed with 280 replies of this OpenStreetMap ContributorFlap Slimy Outward have been discussed with 280 replies of this OpenStreetMap Contributor| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 185433498 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-07-09 20:20 ~ 3 days ago | 1 | ~ 3 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This huge bounding box size was completely by accident; this was meant to be two separate changesets. Sorry!https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185433838 |
| 185168364 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-07-06 00:23 ~ 7 days ago | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Beale Street should remain trunk until the interchange is open. Tagging it as primary effectively creates a gap in the trunk route. It should probably also remain a trunk road until all movements between the Route 93 alignment and I 40 are open. |
| 2 | ~ 4 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks! | |
| 182142219 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-03 04:57 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | BPTT ♦93 | Hi there! What information do you have on a possible ferry between Barnegat Light and Island Beach? Anything I can look into or investigate in person? |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | No, I don't have any information (hence the fixme=* request). | |
| 185212256 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-07-06 16:35 ~ 6 days ago | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | have you followed https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716/36 ?where this change was discussed? |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I just visited this area (source=survey). | |
| 3 | ~ 6 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | The sole purpose of NM 7 is to connect US 62/180 to Carlsbad Cavern. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | Please reread https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716/36Can you please NOT change any name or any ref or any classification of any highway in the US or elsewhere until you have proved yourself more capable of “reading the room” when... | |
| 5 | ~ 5 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | this specific change looks sensible but you are NOT allowed to make any changes like this without review from community | |
| 185118764 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-07-05 01:53 ~ 8 days ago | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This changeset has been reverted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185241667. |
| 185119046 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-07-05 02:05 ~ 8 days ago | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | have you discussed this change with community?if yes where it happened?see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716/43 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This changeset has been reverted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185241605. | |
| 184771888 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-29 02:38 ~ 14 days ago | 1 | ~ 13 days ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | according to the wiki, highway=unclassified is for 'minor public roads'. These are clearly not that. The fact they are named or part of a bus/taxi route does not affect the highway classification. They do not serve through traffic, they are only for the exclusive use of the Boring Company. |
| 2 | ~ 13 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Per the Wiki:"The highway=service tag denotes ways used for vehicle access to a building, parking lot, service station, business estate, beach, campsite, etc. Service ways are usually not part of the public street network and may sometimes be inaccessible to the general public, which can be s... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 days ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | These tunnels are a one-of-a-kind system, highway=service is the most accurate classification considering their size and private usage. I wouldn't use busway either considering Teslas are hardly buses. | |
| 184828521 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-30 02:14 ~ 13 days ago | 1 | ~ 13 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | As of June 28, 2026, 16 of 40 houses have been completed, exactly 40%. |
| 176061168 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-17 17:40 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | I've changed access on all the LVCC roads to private, not customers - please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177668718. access=customers implies customers can drive their own cars down these roads, (like in a car park), this is obviously not correct & only authorised vehicles ma... |
| 2 | ~ 14 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, you do have to pay to use this road system, right? IIRC, the only vehicles that can drive here are Teslas. | |
| 3 | ~ 13 days ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | That's not strictly true. The only vehicles that can use these roads are Teslas operated by the Boring Company. You cannot pay to drive on these roads. You can only pay to be a passenger in a vehicle. It is a form of highway=busway, these are not tagged access=customers. | |
| 4 | ~ 13 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I see. I guess highway=busway does kinda make sense... but it's for buses, and Teslas are clearly not buses ̶(̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶w̶a̶y̶.̶.̶.̶)̶. | |
| 184593830 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-25 16:23 ~ 17 days ago | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This was obvious SEO spam |
| 2 | ~ 13 days ago | MappingMore ♦575 | Revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184563474 | |
| 179375120 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-05 01:48 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | tguen ♦123 | A lot of these road names are not valid. Please retag/remove them. |
| 2 | ~ 16 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, I didn't make up these names. These names were originally in alt_name=*. It's the classic JOSM error of "alternative name without name." What should be done about these? | |
| 178022018 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-02 19:53 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | CAM-Gerlach_Revert ♦1,306 | I'm not entirely sure why a mapper of your experience thought using Google Maps as a source for OpenStreetMap was acceptable, when you noted on the fixme=* that it was proprietary, but as it seems you later verified the name independently I won't revert it. However, you missed updating one... |
| 2 | ~ 21 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | County GIS doesn't display a name for it, assessor's parcel maps don't display a name, and street view doesn't exist at the intersection of this road and Badura Avenue. | |
| 3 | ~ 21 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | Sorry, but I'm not following how any of that is supposed to justify using an explicitly prohibited source. By contrast, Google being the _only_ source for the name makes all the risks and problems of copying it from them much more severe, both the legal risks (it becomes a de-facto "Copyri... | |
| 4 | ~ 17 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. I have removed the name here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184602734 | |
| 5 | ~ 17 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | Thanks | |
| 178432049 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-12 01:40 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | CAM-Gerlach_Revert ♦1,306 | A source of Google Maps?And if its closed, shouldn't it have the appropriate lifecycle prefix (`disused:shop=variety_store`, etc)? Unless its going to re-open as the same thing? |
| 2 | ~ 21 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | The wiki claims that tags like name=* and addr:*=* can still be used, as they're useful for navigation. | |
| 3 | ~ 21 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | Okay, so could you please link to where specifically the wiki says that? I.e. your source=* ;) | |
| 4 | ~ 21 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix | |
| 5 | ~ 21 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | Oh, I thought you were answering the first question (about your use of the normally prohibited Google Maps as a source), since they were presumptive derived from that source and my second question didn't mention anything related to those tags, but rather why it was missing a lifecycle prefix (a... | |
| 6 | ~ 17 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Sorry, I forgot to reply to this.I think I used Street View to determine that it was closed. As for the tag "opening_hours=24/7%20closed", that's a value that iD suggests in the "Opening Hours" dropdown menu. I think I'll fix this to remove proprietary data. | |
| 7 | ~ 17 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I have removed the idiosyncratic tags in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184603032 | |
| 8 | ~ 17 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | Thanks. | |
| 182494558 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-11 06:05 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | jandar22 ♦41 | Hi, I see a lot of these segments were given "ref=Old US 421" where they are already tagged with "old_ref=US 421". I would think these are redundant and the latter is preferable since it's pre-categorized as a historical reference code. Please remove the "ref=*" ta... |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | From what I understand, old_ref=* was originally for historic road numbers that have since been removed. On paper, this is perfect for a situation like this. Unfortunately, the tag is now used to store any old highway number, even if there's no trace of the old_ref's existence. That's... | |
| 3 | ~ 17 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Done, I have removed them here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184603446 | |
| 4 | ~ 17 days ago | jandar22 ♦41 | Totally agree about old_ref=* being overused, it does seem like a lot of roads have it regardless of whether it's been reassigned a new route number or not. In general I fall in the camp of believing any historical or outdated data doesn't really need to be in OSM, although I know that isn... | |
| 5 | ~ 17 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | As I'm not a local of North Carolina (nor have I ever been there), I'll leave it to the locals/the community to decide on the best name for this road. Clearly, it's not "Secondary Route 3549" since it's unsigned, nor is it "Old US 421" since I have yet to see ... | |
| 184458098 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-23 04:50 ~ 20 days ago | 1 | ~ 19 days ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | This trunk spur here is fine, since its purpose is to link Lexington Park and NAS Patuxent River. The bulk of long distance traffic coming from 235/Waldorf or Route 4/Annapolis would be converging onto this route rather than making a U-shaped movement bypassing Lexington Park. |
| 2 | ~ 19 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll change it back. Thanks! | |
| 3 | ~ 18 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I have changed it back here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184502320 | |
| 184408716 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-21 22:58 ~ 21 days ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Bullhead Parkway is divided—it just hasn't been mapped as such yet. It has a narrow soft median for most of its route. |
| 2 | ~ 21 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I wish there were a JOSM plugin that would let you easily split an undivided highway into two divided highways (and vice versa). This way, tags dependent on direction (such as lanes=* and placement=*) can be corrected automatically. I feel like Bullhead Parkway should be split into its carriageways ... | |
| 3 | ~ 20 days ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I can go ahead an work on splitting the carriageways here. I will say though that it is fine to add applicable tags to roads that aren't mapped as they stand in real life. It's better to have one correct thing and one incorrect thing than two incorrect things. That aside, it is possible fo... | |
| 178149763 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-05 17:09 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | CAM-Gerlach_Revert ♦1,306 | You should be able to simply find the website via a search engine (or other means) so there should be no need to use Google Maps as a source=* for this. |
| 2 | ~ 21 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I did verify this community's name via a different website; check out the node's history for more information (and the way it's part of). | |
| 3 | ~ 21 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | As mentioned, I was referring to the website=*, not the name, at least per what you stated in the changeset source tag. It should be easy to independently find that URL without (at least directly) relying on Google Maps as a source, which is proprietary and of course prohibited per OSM policy https:... | |
| 174580736 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-12 22:50 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 22 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | *Upgraded 🤦♂️ |
| 184106981 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-14 18:47 ~ 28 days ago | 1 | ~ 28 days ago | pwbriggs ♦326 | Thanks https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Flap%20Slimy%20Outward. I left a comment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184037885 to notify the user who split these (and others who happen upon that changeset), in case you didn't already. |
| 2 | ~ 28 days ago | Jfact0ry ♦5 | I'm going to be doing this for the whole town for consistency because some structures have multiple addresses. Please don't revert my work unless this is wrong. | |
| 3 | ~ 24 days ago | Hogmite ♦4 | My understanding is your work isn’t deleted and can be recovered. You just have to go bow down before the working group and have them douse you with holy water. | |
| 4 | ~ 24 days ago | Jfact0ry ♦5 | I was really upset and acted poorly so forgive me for that if you witnessed it XD but I’m over it now | |
| 5 | ~ 24 days ago | Jfact0ry ♦5 | Read my diary XD | |
| 6 | ~ 22 days ago | catgirlseraid ♦59 | What was the justification for reverting? I'm not aware of any local consensus requiring addresses on buildings instead of nodes, both are in common use. One feature one element does not apply in this situation as normally the address is for the land parcel not the building, unless different lo... | |
| 7 | ~ 22 days ago | catgirlseraid ♦59 | In the future, its best practice to reach out to the mapper before reverting changesets to come to a soultion. | |
| 8 | ~ 22 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | Hi @catgirlseraid , thanks for your feedback! Just FYI for you or anyone else following here, these changesets and their reversion were [discussed at length](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1781475481577489) with both @jfact0ry and @Flap%20Slimy%20Outward on the OSM-US Slack, where along... | |
| 9 | ~ 22 days ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦262 | And hey @Jfact0ry , I certainly understand your frustration when your work gets reverted, especially without giving you a chance to discuss it first, when in this case these are both legitimate, recognized ways to map addresses)--I know how easy it can be to let negative feelings get the better of o... | |
| 184279505 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-18 16:26 ~ 24 days ago | 1 | ~ 22 days ago | CAM-Gerlach_Revert ♦1,306 | Thanks Flappy, got to it quicker than I could! Also nonsensical tagging, blatant advertising, and to top it all off a changeset source=* of Google Maps to boot. --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184279505 ... |
| 183943283 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-10 20:45 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Is 'California National Historic Trail' signposted here? If not, this may be a commemorative name and not a common one. The common name here seems to simply be US/Route/Highway 93, which is already supplemented by the ref=*. |
| 2 | ~ 23 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I don't think so, though I haven't checked this whole segment. All of these highways are part of the "California National Historic Trail Auto Route," so I assumed that would be the name used here. | |
| 3 | ~ 23 days ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Going off of that I believe that would not be the name of the road, and the name isn't used for navigation purposes like a name such as Great Basin Highway (which is signed) would be. I think unless there is some other signposted name, the road should be left unnamed as technically the ref=* se... | |
| 183854360 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-09 03:32 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Hi Flap Slimy Outward, I discussed this changeset on the OSMUS Slack, and others agreed that this is incorrect mapping. SR 30 is not unsigned between the segments, it is legally defined as discontinuous. Therefore, the existing way it was already mapped is all that should be mapped. Please revert yo... |
| 2 | ~ 23 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Done 👍This changeset has been reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184332843 | |
| 180790829 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-03 00:13 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | willkmis ♦218 | Just noticed this change. I really don't think Highway 1 along the coast here should be trunk. It's not a major through route between major cities and is famously not a high speed route, at this point it's basically just used for touristic purposes and to link very small communities. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | State Route 1 is basically the only connection between these places. US 101 is too far way to do that. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | too far away* | |
| 4 | ~ 25 days ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Seconding disagreement with this stretch being 'trunk' and will be reverting. There are no two major population centers whose connection is primarily served by this highway. Trunk assignment in CA is largely done (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classificati... | |
| 5 | ~ 25 days ago | spatialia ♦26 | Adding in that someone in Cambria who wants to go to Monterey would definitely go along US 101 rather than highway 1, unless they wanted to take the scenic route. It's not trunk. I've made this exact decision many times. | |
| 6 | ~ 24 days ago | Carnildo ♦911 | When applying the "only connection" criteria, you also need to take into account the importance of the places. WA-23 is basically the only connection between Steptoe, St. John, Lamont, and Sprague, but that doesn't make it trunk -- the four towns have a combined population smaller th... | |
| 7 | ~ 24 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay then. I'll be more careful from here on out. | |
| 183896352 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-09 22:10 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 27 days ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | What do you mean “attempted”? Did you run into any problems?Also, if you’re going to model official highway names, I would strongly encourage you to go beyond a cursory reading of a Wikipedia article and consult more serious sources. In particular, for official_name=*, please c... |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, I wasn't quite finished, and Wikipedia gives conflicting names for the same portions of US 101, making it hard to tell what name goes where. | |
| 3 | ~ 25 days ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | Yes, the Caltrans report I linked to explains that the state and local governments sometimes name overlapping road segments, such that a given segment may have multiple official names. I also hope you haven’t renamed city streets according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has never done a good job of t... | |
| 4 | ~ 25 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | No, I don't rename city streets based on what Wikipedia says. | |
| 5 | ~ 25 days ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | OK, that’s a relief.We’re discussing this changeset more generally in Slack: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCN1KJ76U/p1781742162221729 | |
| 6 | ~ 25 days ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | There's a discussion on OSM US Slack about what parts of this changeset may have been appropriate: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCN1KJ76U/p1781742162221729@Flap Slimy Outward, please don't continue with the changes until we have some agreement on this. | |
| 7 | ~ 24 days ago | woodpeck_repair ♦37,769 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 184291301 where the changeset comment is: revert wholesale name changes from changeset 183896352 that were not discussed with the community | |
| 8 | ~ 24 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | @Kai_Johnson okay, I'll leave this area alone for now. | |
| 184250463 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-18 01:27 ~ 25 days ago | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | At the West Pioneer Boulevard intersection, Bing Streetside shows a street name sign that seems to say “N. Horizon Blvd.” It’s hard to make out in that footage, but there’s definitely a directional prefix. |
| 2 | ~ 24 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Hm, I guess I'll add it back. Not only is there no "South Horizon Boulevard," but other parts of this road (such as, for example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1194115120) were never tagged with it at all. I will restore them for all portions of Horizon Blvd for consistency. | |
| 3 | ~ 24 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This changeset has been reverted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184286700. | |
| 4 | ~ 24 days ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | Thanks, it seems reasonable to extend the directional beyond this one stretch.Many jurisdictions use directionals to indicate the quadrant of the street grid, whether or not there’s a counterpart on the other side of town. So there could be a North Horizon Boulevard to the north of Mesquit... | |
| 5 | ~ 24 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I see. I tried to demarcate the postal code boundaries, but I ran into issues north of I-15. | |
| 184253210 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-18 04:27 ~ 25 days ago | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716 |
| 2 | ~ 24 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | (responded) | |
| 184114344 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-14 23:37 ~ 28 days ago | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716 |
| 184251531 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-18 02:40 ~ 25 days ago | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Hi there,The previous beginnings and ends of the 'motorway' segments here were aligned with posted regulatory 'Being Freeway' and 'End Freeway' signage. It was a considerable effort to locate and document the existence/non-existence of this signage (please see https:/... |
| 184244034 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-17 20:16 ~ 25 days ago | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | Why are you changing street names that have fractions in them? Did you use a specific source to confirm they were written that way?There's a street sign for F 1/2 Road here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.09904219997199&lng=-108.47785949997001&z=17&focus=photo&dateFro... |
| 184243619 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-17 20:04 ~ 25 days ago | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | May I ask why you made these changes to "F Road" and "Patterson Road"? What source did you use? If you checked the area for Mapillary you would see that your name changes are incorrect. Patterson ends at 31 Road which can be seen here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.091857... |
| 180334382 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-24 04:57 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Hello! We've been discussing memorial names and highway number-based names on the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/veterans-of-foreign-wars-of-the-united-states-memorial-highway-aka-i-83/141703 |
| 2 | ~ 26 days ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | What resource did you use to make these name changes? Did you consult with the local community before making these changes. From what I've most of your changes are incorrect and need to be reverted.Please link the resource(s) you used and consult with the local community before making any c... | |
| 3 | ~ 26 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | According to Wikipedia, the official name of US 6 is "Grand Army of the Republic Highway." These edits have already been reverted. | |
| 4 | ~ 25 days ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | I appreciate the response. I checked this morning and none of your edits were reverted like you said. Thank you providing your source for the "Grand Army of the Republic" changes, but you neglected to share your source for the other changes you made in this changeset. I would like to see y... | |
| 5 | ~ 25 days ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | So for reference I manually reverted some of the changes in CO (mainly road name/ref edits). I did not do anything in Utah. | |
| 6 | ~ 25 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | To answer the main question: No, I did not consult any community about this, since the name "Grand Army of the Republic Highway" applies to US 6 nationwide, rather than applying to a specific stretch of US 6.I've made numerous miscellaneous edits in Utah, and that was right after ... | |
| 7 | ~ 25 days ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | I did see that you reverted some of Flaps changes SD Mapman. Thank you for that.In regards to the "Grand Army of the Republic" name change. That is something that should've been discussed either on the OSM Forum or the OSM US Slack because its nationwide and affects multiple commu... | |
| 184038514 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-13 02:27 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Hello, please do not remove designation names. Additionally, route suffixes are not to be abbreviated regardless of how it renders (e.g. Business needs to be spelled out). |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Parts of US 85 are known as the CanAm Highway. Why not use that over a duplicate name like "Highway 85"? Also, as I've mentioned before, Business routes don't render due to their long name. Can we at least fix that first? | |
| 3 | ~ 25 days ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Because CanAm Highway isn't signed anywhere on streetblades, and it's not the name that anyone would use for address tags. As far as the business routes go, that's out of my wheelhouse, I agree it would be good to fix the Carto display limit. I think they are working on that. | |
| 4 | ~ 25 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Ah, I see. But now, the name "CanAm Highway" is nowhere on the ways, not even in official_name=*. Can you at least restore that? (JOSM's "same value of 'name' and 'alternative name'" validation error removed that)If it's being fixed, that's ... | |
| 5 | ~ 25 days ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Did I say "iD's GitHub"? I meant "OSM Carto's GitHub"... 🤦♂️ | |
| 6 | ~ 25 days ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Cool will do. I think I'll put it in alt_name=* since there might be memorial designations that I've missed or in the future. | |
| 184038276 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-13 02:08 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Please do not remove designation names without further discussion. This leads to loss of data (e.g. directionals) |
| 183947584 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-11 00:23 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 29 days ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | I've reverted this change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184064467. PLEASE, start looking at the history of a road before changing its name like this. If an experienced local mapper has already worked on it, then the name is probably already correct. I admit, the street names fo... |
| 183946360 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-10 23:04 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | ScrawnyMeowth1 ♦36 | What's your justification for changing this road to a trunk? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | To connect the trunk spur left behind by WA 240 to either another trunk road or a motorway. | |
| 176082460 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-18 08:24 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | pwbriggs ♦326 | Why did you overwrite a bunch of fixme=* tags with "Needs name"? For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6121903/history/6 had a useful and meaningful fixme that you seem to have unintentionally removed. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I'm not sure, to be honest. Like you said, it was probably unintentional.A bunnch of residential highways lacked a name=* tag, so I added a fixme=* request. Feel free to revert any edits that damaged existing fixme=* requests (but make sure to keep mine as well). | |
| 179374552 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-05 01:07 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | tguen ♦123 | Hello,Which Wikipedia page is your source, "Purple Heart Trail"? (Note that Wikipedia is not a primary source.)This looks more like a designation than a name to me. https://www.purpleheart.org also gives the "Purple Heart" designation to cities and counties.Also I can... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Apparently, it was designated by a law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_5_in_Oregon#Route_description | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | compdude ♦173 | This name should be on the official_name=* tag since it is not used by the general public. This is no different than the "So and So Memorial Highway" names. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | The official_name=* key is already occupied by the value "Korean War Veterans' Memorial Highway." Adding that would make two names for the highway, which I don't think is possible (or true). | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | tguen ♦123 | wdym? This changeset moved "Korean War Veterans Memorial Highway" to official_name when "Robert Hugh Baldock Freeway" was already there. (I've since removed the latter.) Also see https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_366.924It seems to be both possible and true. &qu... | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I know, right?! I would have added all three to name=* if it weren't for the fact that it would cause validation errors and it would be too long of a string. Which of these names should apply to the whole freeway? In other words, which of these three designations would be best fit for name=*? | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | tguen ♦123 | I've never heard anyone call it anything other than I5, so probably none. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Adding these names to alt_name=* with name=* being left blank will cause validation errors ("Alternative name without Name"). | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | compdude ♦173 | You can add the noname=yes tag to avoid the validation error. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | But that's not true, as I-5 in Oregon does have a name. In fact, it has three! | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | compdude ♦173 | The name=* tag should be something that is actually used by the general public. California is probably the only state with named freeways whose names are commonly used by the general public. This is not the case in OR.I don't believe you are from OR (neither am I, but I do live in WA), ... | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | Brian'sPants ♦2 | For what it's worth, I live in Oregon (and drive it regularly) and I've never heard it referred to as anything other then I5, or seen any signage with those legislated names.I don't know what the standard practice is but it seems these kind of names would be more appropriate for a... | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | Moonfire ♦7 | Also an Oregon resident here and have never heard it referred to as anything else than I-5. I have seen signage in a few places specifying the memorial names but would not consider it proper for the name= key. Additionally, I hadn't ever heard of the ODOT internal name "Pacific Highway #1&... | |
| 183804290 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-08 01:08 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Although traffic data is unavailable west of the Beltway, these roads appear to be designed like arterial roads rather than being collector/distributor roads. This video might give an idea of how much traffic passes through these and surrounding roads: https://youtu.be/-Jl4fyH9cJc |
| 183764493 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-07 06:02 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | There are now too many tertiary roads in this region. Mountain Run Drive has a speed limit of 25 mph, while some of the longer ones have a speed limit of 30 mph. See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183804290. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183804356. | |
| 183726277 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-06 07:58 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Very short sections of arterial roads like this generally don't need expressway tags, especially since access control doesn't always indicate an expressway as I've previously explained. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting. Sunset Road does something similar over I-15. Should I remove expressway tags from that one, too? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Yeah, that one's not really an expressway either. If a road is only consequentially access-controlled because of a grade separation like an overpass, it's not necessary to tag it as an expressway since it's just an arterial road with an overpass. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll remove those tags. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I have removed those tags here: https://osm.org/changesets/183795800 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Sorry, wrong URL: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183795800 | |
| 183472484 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-01 00:37 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | This trunk route really shouldn't extend all the way around to Boise via Highway 21. The vast majority of traffic heading toward Ketchum and Sun Valley are coming from the south via Hailey. This is evident by the significantly lower AADT north of Ketchum. Highway 75 and 21 are much more remote ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, you left a stub in Ketchum without connecting it to any other trunk roads. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | As I have said before trunk spurs, or spurs of any classification are acceptable as long as there is a good rationale for doing so. In this case, the purpose is to link Ketchum and Hailey to I 84/Twin Falls. The trunk spurs that are issues are the ones that are upgraded without any reason given or o... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | Joseph R P is entirely correct here. Flap Slimy Outward, we are repeatedly having to advise you on the same things over and over again. Please take the advice you've been given in multiple changeset comments by multiple people to heart. We all make mistakes, but it's important that you lea... | |
| 172982620 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-08 02:09 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! Please have a look on your new relation. What is the mean of the tagsCLASSFP=U1FUNCSTAT=SGEOID=3205100GEOIDFQ=1600000US3205100LSAD=57MTFCC=G4210PCICBSA=N?PLACEFP\t05100PLACENS\t02407816 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Those are TIGER tags. To be honest, I don't know what those specific ones mean. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | I see you updated the Census boundary for Beatty. The update is welcome, but when you make an update like this next time, you might check to see if there's an existing Census boundary in place first. In this case, relation/170095. If there is, the correct thing to do is to update the existing e... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | Also, FYI, here's where you can find out what all those TIGER fields mean: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/data/tiger/tgrshp2025/TGRSHP2025_TechDoc.pdf | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Thank you very much! I've been updating some boundaries in the Southwest US in JOSM, which warns me about being unable to convert to WGS84. I never knew what this meant and proceeded anyway. But now that this tool exists, I might have to redo these boundaries... | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | Good idea! If you're working on boundaries in SoCal, you may bump into some that I updated recently. Keep an eye out for boundaries with recent dates in the source tag on the member ways! | |
| 183617155 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-03 23:32 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | First of all, as per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/unifying-florida-ref-and-other-related-tagging-sr-vs-fl/141158/33 we use "SR" in ref's in Florida so the ref should have been added as "SR T". Second of all I have never heard mainline Florida's Turnpike referre... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | also I'm pretty sure that ramps can have ref's and unsigned_ref's on them | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I am aware of that. However, Florida's Turnpike is not a state highway (not a signed one, anyway). "FL T" is short for "Florida's Turnpike," whereas "SR T" would mean "State Road T," which is just... wrong on a thousand levels...And yes, ramps _c... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | again, I have never heard it referred to as "FL T" | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | we don't just abbreviate a name because we want to, that's what short_*=* is for. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Does the Turnpike have some sort of road number that it is referred to? If not, then all the ways should be tagged with noref=yes. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | it already has a ref, the unsigned_ref. It's got a name and the FDOT unsigned_ref. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I have removed them: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183619039 | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | things can just have a unsigned_ref and no ref if that is how it is in the real world. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | as in a unsigned_ref and no ref what so ever. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I found something: https://www.google.com/maps/@25.9202511,-80.216001,3a,15y,301.04h,90.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suzN5SoaNKgM0fU6QL54YPQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.5357118354995123%26panoid%... | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | Just because it's used as an abbreviation in some places doesn't mean that it should be put in the ref. Not every highway=motorway needs a ref as long as it has a unsigned_ref of some sort and ideally a name which mainline Florida's Turnpike does. Also, when there isn't any other... | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Even if a motorway has the key unsigned_ref=* filled out, validators (like those on Osmosis) will still warn editors about "motorway[s] without ref=*, int_ref=*, nat_ref=*, or reg_ref=*".I used Bing Streetside (provided by iD) at the exact same location as the link, and it shows the same... | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | NE2 ♦13 | Don't tag for the validator. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | Just as an FYI, I put a question about this on the OSMUS slack, feel free to leave a comment, I am looking to see what the community consensus on this is.the link is https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1780670048364089 .Happy mapping,Udar. | |
| 181692837 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-22 22:02 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | Similar to the comment on changeset/181646686, please keep the source and datum:* tags on the ways in imported boundary data, such as way/33178232. This information helps us maintain the boundary data over time! Thanks! |
| 181646686 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-21 21:39 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | Similar to the comment on changeset/181391951, please keep the source tags on ways used in boundary relations, like way/33178326. That's important so we can tell which version of the TIGER data the boundary came from. Also, please keep the datum:* tags on these ways. Those tags document that th... |
| 181391951 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-16 01:25 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | I noticed you deleted all the tags from way/37913359. It's ok to delete most of the tags from the ways that are only used in boundary relations. But please keep the source tag. That's very helpful when we come back in a few years and try to figure out which version of the TIGER data this b... |
| 183521333 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-01 22:35 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | NE2 ♦13 | Reverted. I live here and can tell you for certain that CR 522 does not exist inside Disney World. The ref=World Drive tags are a misuse of the ref tag, which is not used for names. |
| 164916363 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-14 00:12 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | BubbaJuice ♦163 | The way that you made here is not a bridge. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1377330058 Please avoid making false bridges such as these.Thank you,BubbaJuice |
| 183621224 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-04 03:44 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | what is your source that busses have started stopping at the bus stop at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1039651984 again, aka whats your source for changing it from was:highway=bus_stop to highway=bus_stop?Happy mapping,Udar. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | An iD suggestion to upgrade the tags. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | that iD issue is one that I ignore right now because I don't see how else to tag that there used to be a bus stop at the location, I normally would delete but in the case of this area as there is so much construction some of the bus stops along Northwest 7th Avenue and around the GGI will likel... | |
| 183617754 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-04 00:18 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190145443 is part of Palmetto expressway and is referred to as such.happy mapping,Udar. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Done, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183618801 | |
| 183617447 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-06-03 23:53 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Udarian ♦792 | From what I can tell HEFT is more of a short name than a ref.happy mapping,Udar |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Huh. Well, in many other states, a short name is used for a motorway's ref=* tag. Think of New York's Turnpikes. | |
| 183182540 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-26 01:31 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | US 66 Hist should not be used, please spell Historic out completely. --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183182540 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I should mention that ref=* keys longer than eleven (11) characters don't get rendered. This is a known issue in OSM Carto. Until (and if) that gets fixed, this will have to do for now (since the renderer would also hide the "I 40" value, which is more important). | |
| 183327655 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-28 23:24 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | RVR015 ♦30 | Hello I noticed that some of your edits have typos in them. For example, 'frewway' vs 'freeway'. Can you please review your name changes to ensure they are correct? Thank you. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh. "Frewway" is 100% a typo. I meant "Freeway." | |
| 183268034 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-27 17:44 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | This stretch of Route 20 lacks a physical median between Exit 308A and the Lindsey Blvd overpass (except for some small sections but even then it's still a very low surface road-like median), and has a low speed limit (35-45 mph) and a sidewalk. It's closer to being an expressway than a fr... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I used Bing aerial imagery, and it looks like a physical median. But if it doesn't have one, shouldn't these carriageways be merged? That and the fact that this segment of US 20 has relatively low speed limits and a sidewalk wouldn't make it an expressway either, right? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I should have mentioned that I noticed this in the more-recent Esri imagery. It's a painted median, not a center turn lane or a double yellow centerline, so you absolutely could merge the carriageways although it is also perfectly fine to leave it as-is because I've seen roads like this ma... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Ah, I see. IIRC, the OSM convention is to only map the directions separately if there's a physical barrier, which there isn't. Since you mentioned that the median isn't a central turning lane, I might have to change this again. This, combined with low speed limits of 35 mph (and a sim... | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | A road with full or near full access control is typically an expressway by default. As I said it is a case-by-case basis but a fairly common type of expressway are roads that would otherwise be motorways or be a continuation of a motorway if not some minor attributes the violate the expected freeway... | |
| 182315688 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-06 23:04 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | What was your logic for making this change to Otis Street? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | To connect a secondary stub to a primary road... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | But this segment of Otis Street is now overclassified; I believe highway=tertiary is the best classification. It's two lanes, one in each direction, with a 25 mph speed limit (https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Lynwood/#!/Lynwood07/Lynwood0710.html#7-10) & has stop signs at the intersections... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, leaving this as tertiary would leave a secondary stub at Abbott Road. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | I don't know of any OSM rules/guidelines that road classifications can change only at a junction with another road of an equal or higher classification. Stubs are fine if they accurately reflect road characteristics/roles rather than visual preferences of editors. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I'm pretty sure it's on the wiki? Also, usually they aren't: since right-of-ways in OSM are classified by importance, they need to form a cohesive network. This means that (with a few exceptions), "important" highways (tertiary through trunk) should begin and end at a highwa... | |
| 182890671 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-19 17:03 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | *FULL access control 🤦♂️ |
| 182680717 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-15 06:13 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, and also: https://maps.clarkcountynv.gov/assessor/parcelmap/mapfiles/map137217.pdf |
| 182658357 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-14 16:10 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I don't think these roads should be trunk even if they were to receive any non-local traffic as the main through route (or "trunk route") for such traffic would be I 15/11. The only case these roads would be viable for non-local traffic use would be if there was a really bad jam on th... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay then. I distinctly remember you telling me that, due to the lack of a complete beltway, non-local traffic would be "forced onto Nellis [Blvd]," for example, to reach Nellis AFB. I could have instead upgraded Boulder Highway (which WAS built to carry some U.S. Routes), but:1. SR ... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Until a roadway that is of or near the same quality as the western segment of the Beltway is built bypassing Vegas to the east, there isn't any way we could fill that gap on the map. Since that road doesn't exist, you could almost say I 15 and 11 are the Eastern Beltway. Realistically and ... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Come to think of it, SLC does have 84 to the northeast, though it's still technically not part of a beltway. | |
| 181479729 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-17 23:17 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Mxdanger ♦110 | The way (1500619936) you created with "How can drivers in the SR 57 Express Lanes access the rest of SR 57 (to the north of the SR 60–SR 57 interchange)?"To answer that: CA 57 EXPR ends where it connects with CA 60 EXPR. It never joins back up with CA 57. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay... | |
| 182315586 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-06 22:57 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | What was your logic for making this change to State Street? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | As I said before on Otis Street (this applies to all the other "What was your logic?" comments), I connected secondary roads to one another. | |
| 182315663 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-06 23:02 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | What was your logic for making this change to State Street? |
| 182576498 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-12 22:59 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | It is. concrete is not natural=bare_rock. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Flap Slimy Outward | How else do I tag traffic island areas? Other cities use landuse=grass, but Vegas doesn't have a lot of grass due to being in a desert. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | You only need to use area:highway=traffic_island + surface=*. Traffic islands don't render on carto and that's ok, not everything has to. | |
| 178336871 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-10 02:53 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Black_Diamond ♦67 | Hi, I've reverted this changeset with changeset #182539724. The type of road depends on the capacity and road features. This is not a high speed expressway. It has uncontrolled intersections, and driveways. It is not a higher speed expressway that are like Lawrence and San Tomas. It is a contin... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | In OSM, roads are classified according to importance. The way you left things results in a stub that can be very obviously connected to the freeway nearby. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Black_Diamond ♦67 | While it connects, like many of the other roads, it is not a continuation of the county road G2. The continuation of county road G2 actually goes from Lawrence to Quito, which is even narrower and slower than either Lawrence or Saratoga. Saratoga is not a continuation of G2.This segment of Sarat... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | G2 continuing onto Quito Rd instead of Saratoga Ave is not what I mean by "Connecting trunk roads." Ultimately, (for the most part) road numbers are just that: numbers. Usually, they only tell people who maintains them, not how important the road is. What I mean by "trunk stub" i... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | Black_Diamond ♦67 | Have you actually driven or biked this road? Saratoga Ave is definitely not a part of a beltway or a trunk. That's what the expressways and freeways are for. Parts of Saratoga Ave have been purposefully narrowed to decrease the traffic speed and improve the accessibility to bikes.By increas... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | None of those characteristics describe a trunk road (highway=trunk). To tag what you just said, you can use bicycle=designated, lcn_ref=*, expressway=no, maxspeed=*, and narrow=yes. The only purpose of upgrading this specific segment of Saratoga Ave to highway=trunk is to connect the trunk road at G... | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | Black_Diamond ♦67 | Let me put it another way, why do you think that the people driving on Lawrence want to go to 85, and vis versa? Your bias is assuming that there is a link between the 2 roads.Based on observed traffic in the area, I'd say that the Westgate complex is the actual destination. Large amounts o... | |
| 180233054 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-22 03:52 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | Hello, what was your source for changing these roadways from highway=proposed to highway=construction (contrary to your changeset comment)? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | The ways were already tagged with construction=motorway, so I retagged them as highway=construction to be consistent. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | OK, looks like it should’ve been highway=proposed proposed=motorway. Someone in Slack did some sleuthing and determined that ground hasn’t broken on this bypass (and is unlikely to in the near future). | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | CurlingMan13 ♦2,097 | There were new industrial aeras with roads recently mapped along where this proposed highway is supposed to go.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174477633I suspect that it isn't likely to be built anytime soon. It has been either construction or proposed for the better part of 11... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | Yeah, it’s looking even less realistic these days. I think the main reason to keep it at this point – a weak reason – is just that someone might revivify it otherwise. | |
| 178201369 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-06 18:48 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Striddler ♦3 | Please revert. I-80 as a whole does not presently carry the name "Keystone Shortway" in Pennsylvania and has not for a long time. That name was historically used in legislation, planning, advocacy, and construction. But that name fell off decades ago. The official_name that is already on t... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll move it to old_name=*. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Done: https://osm.org/changesets/182525301 | |
| 182316622 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-07 00:00 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | MxxCon ♦3,552 | Hello.Could you please elaborate why did you delete network=US:NY tag? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182316622 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | From what I read on Wikipedia, the JFK Expressway is not a state highway, like NY 878. In fact, from my research, it doesn't even have a "reference" number, so I don't think the JFK Expressway should have the tag "network=US:NY". | |
| 181343979 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-14 22:54 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | Please revert the changes where you added fictional road tunnels, as you said you would do. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182207502 | |
| 182056143 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-05-01 03:02 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Adjusted* |
| 182039738 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-30 15:47 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | jjyach ♦41 | No one here calls it the Centennial Freeway so that may just be a historical term. It is indeed just known as C-470. Then there is E-470 which is the toll road. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | According to Wikipedia and the CDOT website, portions of SH 470 were originally called "Centennial Parkway." I couldn't find any information about it being "designated" as "Centennial Freeway," unlike my state, which not only has a list of state-maintained highways... | |
| 181398247 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-16 07:17 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | Your edits left broken jagged disconnected motorways. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181398247 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | Please clean these up | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I fixed them. | |
| 181963269 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-28 23:07 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | The rest of 89A could probably keep its motorway designation here since it's only one at-grade intersection in between multiple freeway interchanges. The intersection itself also is so insignificant that it almost doesn't count, considering it is a dead-end road that only leads to storage ... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | So, should the entirety of SR 89A between SR 89 and Fain Road be re-upgraded to highway=motorway? If that's the case, how should I tag Great Western Drive? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Great Western Dr could remain tagged as-is. It's theoretically a public road despite the likely scenario that little to no public traffic uses it on a daily basis. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I see. Well, I found out that, while editing SR 89A, there is a "No left turn" restriction from SR 89A westbound to Great Western Drive, even though Esri shows a left turning lane. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | IIRC the left turn lanes used to be mapped as separate links and I'm assuming the turn restriction is just leftover from when they were deleted. | |
| 181785635 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-24 22:16 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Hello again,Can I ask where the "Pyramid Lake Road" name comes from? There is no signposted name (aside from "State Route 445" etc) on this stretch of the highway. Locally it is referred to as "Pyramid Highway" but never heard anyone call it "Pyramid Lake Road&qu... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | It came from Wikipedia. Also, this stretch of road was originally named "Pyramid Highway," but a local removed those names since, apparently, SR 445 isn't signed north of Dolores Drive (though I was unable to locate it via Nominatim). | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | According to https://nsbfoundation.com/sb/pyramid-lake-road-route-445/, that name applies to NV 445 only between Sutcliffe & NV 446 junction. I was the one that removed it. I lived in this area for over a decade and am familiar with signage there. It sounds like there are many names used for thi... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Also, even in the above case about "Pyramid Lake Road", I would still probably put that as an 'alt_name' since it is the name of the scenic byway carried by the road, and not the road itself per-say. Example, a large stretch of US 395 through the Eastern Sierra is signed as the &... | |
| 181658976 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-22 07:40 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Hi there,A road being part of the national highway system is handled with the documented 'NHS=*' tag and has no bearing on its 'highway' classification. The MAP-21 roads were introduced to the NHS to allow federal funding that hinges on NHS status to be used for urban roadways.... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I have heard before from a user that a road being in the NHS is a good reason to keep it at primary or higher. But I found it strange that the NHS would consider so many roads to be important highways for the country's defense, especially since, as you said, most of the roads I upgraded really ... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | The NHS exists to enumerate non-interstate highways eligible for federal funding (which are constructed/maintained by sub-federal entities), and doesn't imply anything per-say about "importance" in the way the 'highway' tag is used in OSM. There's pretty strong correlat... | |
| 181649099 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-21 23:44 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | I see that you have unilaterally decided to undo much of my recent work on this relation, even though you are aware that the changes were discussed in the Community Forum (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/cleaning-up-historic-us-route-80/139776/14). I still intend to make the changes that have ... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I've replied to the comments at the forum. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Kai Johnson ♦180 | Thanks! I think we're getting closer. Let's work things out there so that we're on the same page with this relation and the member ways. | |
| 181433189 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-16 22:00 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | idkwhatname2use ♦15 | Why did you change the freeway ramps to secondary links near olympic & santa fe? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Because it's possible to access those roads without using the freeway(s). | |
| 181558586 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-19 23:49 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | https://sunstonelv.com/https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181558909 |
| 181438187 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-17 03:35 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Maintenance facilities don't really count as true at-grade intersections (or at least ones significant enough to affect road classification) since the driveways are inaccessible to the general public. These ramps could definitely be motorway links. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll change it back. I see this sort of configuration in many places in Nevada and California. But why use an on/off ramp instead of a street to access it? | |
| 180085396 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-19 02:17 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Hi Flap Slimy Outward,I discussed this change with multiple other locals in person, and we all agreed that these changes don't make sense. I've taken care of reverting for you. |
| 180084800 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-19 01:30 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Hi Flap Slimy Outward,I discussed this change with multiple other locals in person, and we all agreed that these changes don't make sense. I've taken care of reverting for you. |
| 181265173 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-13 09:05 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Can you please explain why this changeset upgraded Sunset/Bottari Ranch/Lower Lamoille to 'secondary', especially after trying to argue that NV 227 should be downgraded to 'secondary'? These are minor unpaved county roads that carry no through traffic. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | If I don't, a secondary stub will remain at SR 227 and Lamoille Canyon Road. The only other nearby destination would be the Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forest; even here, the access road (NF 660) ends at a roundabout, which apparently is quite common (at least as far as I know) in Utah. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | There's no hard rule that there can't be "stubs", especially if it's at the expense of arbitrarily promoting local-access dirt roads to 'secondary'. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | +1 to stubs themselves not being an issue in their own right, as rather they are more a symptom of greater problematic classification criteria or careless editing. I should specify that these road classification stubs are usually an issue since they typically will stem from physical-construction bas... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll fix these. | |
| 179470163 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-07 01:54 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | Could you explain why you upgraded a route that only serves a tiny town of 500 people to primary? US 30 here is absolutely not a major cross-country highway; it's been fully supplanted by I-84 for cross country travel.Once I work through to this area in the Oregon highway classification wor... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | U.S. 30 is a major cross-country highway. Although it has been bypassed in Huntington by I-84, US 30 is the only road going through the town that provides access to a high-speed connection to other destinations. In fact, if I-84 did not exist, I would've upgraded US 30 to trunk because US Highw... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | If I-84 did exist, I would agree that US 30 would be trunk. However, I-84 does exist, and fully bypasses it for any through traffic. And I agree that the road is the only one going through the town...of 500 people. A town of 500 people is not a destination that needs to be served by a primary road a... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | Whoops, meant to say didn't exist, not did exist in my first sentence | |
| 181176607 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-11 06:56 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | The primary route here would be better linking Spring Creek rather than looping back to Idaho Street since the bulk of traffic on both 5th and 12th Streets would be heading towards the Lamoille Highway/Spring Creek rather than following a route like this. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | This would be a rare primary-stub exception like Pyramid Way in Spanish Springs or Lake Mead Parkway in Henderson created by a busy, high-capacity road leading to a populous suburban area with not much beyond that other than low-traffic two-lane highway serving mostly recreational traffic. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it back. But... is Spring Creek really deserving of a primary road? I've never heard of it until looking around Elko a few days ago... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | On its own, Spring Creek probably wouldn't need to be linked by a primary route, especially if it was more adjacent and well-connected to Elko, but Lamoille Highway itself is the only route linking this some 15k population and a handful of commercial/industrial areas here to Elko, and thus it s... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Ah. I just love how the AADT for SR 227 is about the same as the population of one of its destinations (that being Spring Creek), LOL. | |
| 179333205 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-04 06:10 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | ref="I 5 EXPR" is wrong, should be "Express". |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | When I joined OSM, it appeared to me that the consensus for "special" routes of numbered highways was to abbreviate the modifier in all caps. This meant "Business" became "BUS," "Alternate" became "ALT," and "Express" became "EXPR.&quo... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | That hasn’t been the general practice for many years. Maybe it was an isolated case that we had overlooked? | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I have no idea. When I joined, the only two U.S. Business Routes that existed in my city were tagged as ref=US_xx_BUS, so I assumed that was the norm everywhere. | |
| 180474880 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-26 20:42 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Hi,Did you consult the community for this large mechanical edit? It appears unlikely that you checked every single piece of roadway and made sure that this name was actually commonly used. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181024481 | |
| 180794086 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-03 04:54 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I wouldn't add future highway designations to dirt roads/paths like these. This implies the exact roads here will be part of the route when in reality they're likely to be graded/blasted out of existence when Route 121 is built. Same for Route 16 through McDowell County since a new express... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, nearby this specific bbox (and a few others I have found along the way) are some already-mapped under-construction trunk roads (and some proposed ones, too). I don't expect that a (potentially) new US Highway will just straight up use unimproved track roads/foot paths, so should I just dr... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | If possible, if you would like a complete relation here, using proposed ways following the rough path of the future roadway would be more ideal. Though, keep in mind that mapping future features isn't always necessary as the data is rarely used and is subject to change. | |
| 180792941 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-04-03 03:20 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Please do not use future highway designations in the ref=* key, instead use future_ref=*, likewise it should not be applied to proposed segments of Interstates like I 11. There are some signs posted for 121 along the new Coalfields Expressway, but VDOT does have a track record for not getting signag... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Huh. Is that so? West Virginia already has its own SR 121 (which apparently will become US 121 once it's finished). And what's with the duplicate VA 121 relations here? (Doesn't one already exist somewhere else?) I'm pretty sure this is evidence of a new US 121 relation, but what... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | West Virginia's State Route 121 only consists of the opened Coalfields Expressway segment so far. I would only add fut_ref=US 121 to any open segments of the Coalfields Expressway that are slated to be signed as U.S. Route 121, as well as any other proposed/under construction segments of the ro... | |
| 175785678 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-11 05:08 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | archpdx ♦551 | Unless this has changed very recently, the only section of the 405 that has tolled express lanes is between the 605 and 73 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Yushclay ♦24 | Can confirm with archpdx, no toll on express lanes south/east of CA 73. I will be removing toll tags. | |
| 180232899 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-22 03:34 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | McCarran Blvd does form a ring road around Reno, but it's a little too urbanized to serve as a true city-bypassing beltway like the 215 does around Vegas. It mostly links other major local highways like Pyramid Way, Sun Valley Blvd, and Virginia Street to each other rather than providing a bypa... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I guess I'll change it back. I checked the AADT of both roads: While McCarran Blvd does have a higher AADT than Veterans Pkwy, it still doesn't have as much traffic as, say, I-80 or US 395. I'll change McCarran Blvd back to primary but keep the expressway tags (I found a gap som... | |
| 180033654 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-18 01:19 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Suitland Parkway shouldn't have any motorway sections, just because it jump between grade-separation and at-grade intersections very frequently. It also has a speed limit of 45 mph, which may be fine for a section of a greater motorway or connection between motorways (even some Interstates have... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, alright then. I guess I'll have to fix this, then. | |
| 180226677 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-21 21:17 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | michael60634 ♦49 | "name" should be used for the common name. Additionally, you blindly reverted some other unrelated changes. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180226677 |
| 178333258 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-09 22:56 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | jtbritto ♦1 | This is incorrect, it is not East Palm Canyon past Cathedral City limits, it is ST HWY 111 |
| 180282284 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-23 05:18 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Sorry, the URL for source=* should have been https://www.tollbrothers.com/luxury-homes-for-sale/Nevada/Reflection-Ridge#siteplan. |
| 179060952 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-25 23:01 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | clambake92115 ♦12 | why did you add https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483086010 in the middle of a parking lot, and mark the toll lanes as tertiary links? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | To connect the tertiary roads at either end of that very specific road segment. | |
| 176761888 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-02 21:27 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Hello—what is your reasoning for restoring trunk road classification for some of the roads here? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | You commented all those changesets with "Downgraded trunk stub[s] to primary." Well, I decided to restore them to trunk roads as long as they didn't form any "stubs" or anything. The way I re-upgraded them here ensures that there will be a cohesive network, from what was lik... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | These trunk routes have been around for a while as far as I know and are definitely just leftovers from when all expressways and other "expressway-ish" arterial roads were tagged as trunk roads. Put together, Alvernon Way, Route 210, and Kino Pkwy don't really form a coherent route, e... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll be changing these back shortly. (I haven't been to Tucson, but since its state is near mine, I'd assume similar conditions, such as those for roads.) | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | BubbaJuice ♦163 | 4 years ago me and another mapper made these trunk based on traffic numbers. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109601263 & https://pag.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp. These roads are built up because they carry a large amount of cars. In our proposal, these were made trunk to dist... | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | One of the focal points of the 2021–onwards reclassification of trunks roads was avoiding classification highways as trunk based solely on AADT and/or their physical construction and rather their importance in the system, with emphasis on long-haul connectivity. These roads only serve Tucson a... | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | BubbaJuice ♦163 | Despite this, I feel like physical construction is still an important part of road classification. Route 210 & Alvernon feature several grade separated interchanges in my opinion. | |
| 179669801 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-11 03:54 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Considering this is the 95 Business route, that would make US 95/Oran K. Gragson Fwy the official bypass. Rancho should remain primary since its role is only to be an urban arterial road and not a thruway for long distance traffic. I would also keep the collector/distributor lanes paralleling the fr... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. The first part makes sense, but for the second, the wiki says, "roads that can be used by non-motorway drivers should not be tagged with highway=motorway_link." Technically, it is possible to go from Decatur to Valley View and from Rancho, MLK, or Pinto Ln to Charleston or Sahara, al... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | On a related note, why is SR 146 (St. Rose Parkway) tagged as highway=trunk? It doesn't link to any cities outside the Las Vegas metro area and isn't a bypass either (IIRC). | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | C/D lanes are still links in the scope of OSM but are significantly different from regular ramps/slip lanes. For example, the ramps between Sky Pointe and Oso Blanca serve more as surface streets/frontage roads as they pass through signalized intersections and aren't exclusively for enterin... | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay. I guess that makes sense. When I get the chance, I'll fix these road links (and fix the shoulders of the Beltway as well). | |
| 178333578 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-09 23:12 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | VLD549 ♦319 | Hi, I was asked to verify name changes. Could you provide a link of some sort that shows the name to be Deputy Bruce Lee Memorial Highway instead of Highway 111?Thank you! |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Some of these already had a tag of "alt_name= Deputy Bruce Lee [Memorial] Highway". | |
| 179834615 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-14 02:42 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Adjusted interchange* |
| 179823665 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-13 18:23 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | EZRouting ♦46 | I think I misread what relations mean. You can take a left turn from N Las Vegas to East Craig, and the forward relation- i thought it meant no turns and forward only. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Route relations aren't the same thing as turn restriction relations. Continuing forward on Craig Road (onto Fitzgerald Boulevard) leads you straight into the Nellis Air Force Base, which is restricted territory. The "No right turn" relations are for the slip lanes. | |
| 176235936 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-21 21:25 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Stretch Longfellow ♦101 | Is Heartland Expressway explicitly signed as such? Otherwise official_name would be better. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Wikipedia says that a certain NHS route is/will be designated the Heartland Expressway. "Highway 79" is already covered by ref= SD 79. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | Stretch Longfellow ♦101 | I appreciate what you are trying to do, but we have to make sure everything is compliant with OSM standards. Please refer to this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names On-the-ground always gets priority. This can be especially important when it comes to things like addresses, because to my... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | None of the ways were ever tagged with alt_name=Heartland_Expressway or anything like that. Even if there was a relation tagged with name=Heartland_Expressway, that wouldn't help since addr:*=* keys and Nominatum (or any data consumer, for that matter) would associate a relation's name=* t... | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | Stretch Longfellow ♦101 | I'm suggesting to you to add it as alt_name, not that alt_name already existed. To my knowledge, no one actually has an address of Heartland Expwy; it's always something like Highway 385. The name Heartland Expwy is more of a generic name, like the Grand Army of the Republic Highway. No on... | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | Stretch Longfellow ♦101 | I haven't heard from you and you haven't reverted this changeset, so I am going to submit this to be reverted. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | watmildon ♦311 | Flip, can you please just take some feedback and do what is asked when other mappers with more experience point things out? It’s not that hard to work productively together but your seeming defiance about every bit of feedback is getting quite tiresome. This is the 3rd changeset someone ... | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | So I've changed the name= tags back already from L62E to Rapid City just for reference. There is a stretch actually named Heartland Expressway in Hermosa, but otherwise the road names follow local county guidelines. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I feel like I would be repeating myself for the 100th time by saying something like, "name = Highway 79 is redundant because there's already ref= SD 79". | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | There's no way to tell the actual name formatting from the ref though, each jurisdiction can be slightly different. Refs are essentially useless at this point with route relations too IMO. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | Stretch Longfellow ♦101 | Building on what SD Mapman said, keep in mind that what we see on OSM and what providers use are often different. If I type "10036 Highway 79" as my destination address into an OSM-based router, the router is going to look for an address with name=Highway 79. If that doesn't exist, th... | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | Stretch Longfellow ♦101 | Finished reverting Nebraska, and worth noting: there IS a relation for Heartland Expwy already in place. | |
| 179274395 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-03-02 20:56 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | This doesn't seem to be a service road or emergency lane, but rather a really wide shoulder to plan ahead for the expansion of the Beltway and addition of future lanes when needed. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay... Well, how do I tag these, then? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Since there's no physical separation from the road, I would instead add the tags shoulder=both with shoulder:left:width=15 (the shoulder appears to be approx. 15m wide according to a rough measurement on aerial imagery by tracing a line in iD across the width of the shoulder) for tagging specif... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Should clarify that these tags should be added to the highway the shoulders are attached to itself (in this case, the 215) rather than mapped as a separate line. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, I did try to add shoulder=* to some of the ways. Maybe I'll do it once I have more time. | |
| 177703804 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-26 01:55 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | ColbyTheWorldTraveler ♦30 | The name is correct. Thanks for adding it! I didn't think about doing so. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177703804 |
| 178746644 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-18 23:07 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Secondary is definitely a little low for Route 30 through here, but I probably wouldn't upgrade it anywhere past primary. Route 30 is a cross-country highway, but this particular section really only serves as a business route linking the real through highways (the Interstates) to the Downtown ... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it. Interestingly, it was already primary, but someone else downgraded it to secondary to "match how locals use the roads." | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | There are a handful of cases where US Highways can be tagged below primary when they don't serve traffic any differently from another highway tagged below primary in the hierarchy would. Route 30 has a tertiary section around The Dalles, Oregon. In this case, though, I would say that this secti... | |
| 175649243 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-08 05:47 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | Hello, this is in regard to ways 149009289, 27957694, 1456823420, 1456823421, 1420834778, 1076071603, 405301763, 405301759, 149009278, 405301754, & 1051244296.The highway=* tagging on these ways should be reverted to highway=motorway and (where appropriate) highway=motorway_link. Additionall... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | Now that I noticed you also retagged the Marina Expressway as highway=primary, the tagging of these ways (13374200, 1302677241, 123561792, 398203285, 596884162, 596884160, 398203300, & 403844704) should also be reverted to what they were previously, highway=trunk or highway=trunk_link.Additi... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I'll change them back to motorway. The situation out west was quite unusual, given how the slip roads were given names (and that is usually discouraged). I ended up retagging the "main" road as a freeway until the first at-grade intersection at Mindanao Way. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I changed the eastern terminus back to highway=motorway. However, the portion west of Mindanao Way is not a freeway due to the at-grade intersection. Also, why highway=trunk? That would leave a stub that doesn't even connect to any trunk roads. SR 90 appears to be a regional highway rathe... | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines#Urban_expressways These guidelines recommend tagging the westernmost portion of CA 90, between CA 1 (Lincoln Boulevard) and Mindanao Way, as "Trunk + expressway=yes" because that segment "[c]onnects ... | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Trunk roads do have to connect to other trunk roads and motorways; otherwise, you'll be left with a stub that doesn't connect to any other trunk roads or motorways. | |
| 178748296 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-19 00:40 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | *and to avoid making the route continuity look so weird* |
| 176381220 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-25 02:56 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | These roads probably should not be tagged as primary since they aren't major highways, and instead are only used by park visitors. Through traffic cannot use them since a pass is needed to enter. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Ah. But that would leave two primary stubs at either end of this roadway, with this one (locally referred to as US 20) being the fastest route between the actual termini of US 20. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I think it's fine having the primary routes terminate at the entrances since once you've reached the gate, you've reached the destination that the road leads to (in this case Yellowstone). Another way to interpret it: any traffic traveling between the park and a nearby town (like West... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I guess that makes sense. I'll redowngrade these roads then (they aren't even officially part of US 20 anyway...). | |
| 178253655 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-08 06:45 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | It looks like the way 145182578 is the current open ramp, 1408458573 is the currently closed/under-construction future realignment of the current ramp, and 1475194125 might be construction vehicle access. 1475194126 appears to be a temporarily realignment linking 215 South to Far Hills while the ori... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | That's very weird... Which of these will "survive" the construction phase? I was genuinely surprised that OpenWeb, after displaying data from Jan. 31, 2026, showed me that Far Hills got involved in the construction... OSM has a policy of "not mapping temporary features" (tec... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I think the awkwardly short Far Hills Ave exit ramp could stay since it is a drastic realignment from the old ramp. If they weren't completely rebuilding the actual ramp or the temp alignment was much closer to the original, that's a case in which I wouldn't bother having it on the ma... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I modified the intersection based on my best interpretation of your response. How does it look now? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Everything looks accurate to the current construction now. Only change I made here was removing a temporary road that seems to only be an access road for construction vehicles. | |
| 178482757 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-13 03:20 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | The traffic signal signs sometimes display them (some as W, some as N), and sometimes not. Even when they don't for Grand Avenue, they will display them for the intersecting street(s). Furthermore, the signblades commonly associated with residential areas never display them for Grand Avenue, de... |
| 178478447 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-12 22:42 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Source: aerial imagery (Bing) |
| 178431684 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-12 01:15 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Hi there,I've lived in this area for about half of my life. Chickadee/Eagle Canyon is not even remotely an arterial/secondary roadway. It is a minor unpaved road that is not used for any though traffic at all. I'm happy to discuss but I will be reverting this.Bradley |
| 176762803 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-02 21:59 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | BubbaJuice ♦163 | Was this discussed? thanks |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Yes, kind of. After a user downgraded trunk 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗯𝘀 to primary, I decided to sort of recreate the trunk roads while forming a coherent network. That same user then told me that these roads are actually (relatively local) arterials rather than being important cross-country/state highways... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | BubbaJuice ♦163 | 4 years ago me and another mapper made these trunk based on traffic numbers. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109601263 & https://pag.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp. These roads are built up because they carry a large amount of cars. In our proposal, these were made trunk to dist... | |
| 178343404 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-10 07:09 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I don't think these roads should be primary, specifically because they see relatively low traffic volumes and serve areas with low, mostly-residential development, especially roads like Reverence and Cliff Shadows which barely just make it to secondary in terms of connectivity and importance in... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | First of all, why did I not see this notification earlier? Gmail has failed me again... And second of all, alright, I'll go change all of these back to secondary, since Desert Foothills is approximately the only "major" thouroughfare west of the 215. (Maybe that will change in the fut... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Though the sparse population and lack of any major non-residential development is the reason the lack of traffic and priority in the road network Ann Rd has between the Beltway and Durango, when referring to the low development of the Summerlin West, I'm referring not to the development density... | |
| 178344636 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-10 07:40 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Why do you keep constantly making these big undiscussed and badly thought out changes to places on the other side of the world from you? I have reverted this changeset.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178394794 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | boundary=land_area is only used 158 times and is not even documented on the wiki. What does it even mean? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Place=continent is only used 9 times, and only as node. Plus there already exists a (somewhat questionable) Australia continent node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1209843025But how did you think that an area that only consists of mainland Australia could represent a continent? Is Tasmania n... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | (That was the incorrect continent node, the correct one is openstreetmap.org/node/12098430255) | |
| 175985929 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-16 03:03 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | quincylvania ♦88 | Hi, did you mean to add water areas over the boulder islands? It's not clear what's going on here. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | ? I'm not sure what you're asking. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | quincylvania ♦88 | Sorry, I should have included a link. In this changeset you added water areas like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458917115 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458917107 which prevent the islands from showing. I'm wondering if this was intentional? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | No, I did not mean to hide the islands in Lake Mead. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | quincylvania ♦88 | Thanks for your response. I fixed up the area in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178361486. | |
| 176079968 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-18 07:12 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | compdude ♦173 | WA 99 should not be tagged as a trunk road. Please change this back to how it was before, thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Wait, what? Why? How come? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | compdude ♦173 | Please see this wiki article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#TrunkIt says that trunk should only be used on expressways (divided highways with at-grade intersections) in "areas with high population density" (i.e. urban areas). The... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | General consensus says that highway=trunk is not exclusively for expressways. Speaking of, I'm 99% (no pun intended) sure that I added expressway=yes tags to SR 99. Ending the trunk designation at that location would leave a stub. However, since SR 99 appears to be an important statewide route,... | |
| 174578715 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-12 21:39 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I would probably avoid mapping proposed highways like this one, especially since a full freeway here is likely at least a decade down the road. highway=proposed can be useful for mapping out roads that are to be built in the near future so they can be quickly changed to highway=construction, but one... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | There was an already-existing highway=proposed alignment of Sheep Mountain Pkwy that, for the most part, seems to parallel the alignment I found in the "Kyle Canyon Map" PDF. I mean, to be fair, parts of that original alignment that you added have been built (mostly along Shaumber Road), s... | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I would say that all proposed highway ways should probably be deleted unless we know those roads are going to be built and their eminent construction is within a more reasonable timeframe where plans are less likely to change. The OSM Wiki even seems to hint at discouraging mapping proposed highways... | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, that's fair enough. Interestingly, proposed highways 𝘥𝘰 get rendered on the German Carto style. Out of the highway=proposed ways in the Valley, which ones are likely to be built in the near(est) future? I could load an Overpass Turbo query for all the proposed highways in the Valley... | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Off the top of my head, I'm not sure which exact ones would be built soonest, other than some residential streets in multi-phase subdivision projects, or any other major road we know is scheduled to be built (like the Hollywood Blvd extension for example). I wouldn't necessarily go out... | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. When you said, "highway=proposed can quickly be changed to highway=construction once construction actually starts," I think I see what you mean now. Back in Summerlin West, I mapped some portions of Alta Drive, Park Drift Trail, and Grand Park Boulevard as highway=proposed based on a... | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | That is correct. Though not always necessary since they can get in the way of mapping other things in some cases, using proposed features for pre-mapping construction is useful since you or can map everything in one go and then you (or even other editors who now have more context for what's goi... | |
| 178029902 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-03 01:31 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Xvtn ♦495 | Hi, did you notice that some of the roads you removed name=* from also had name:prefix and name:full? For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/503285561 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I believe I reverted a changeset I made that removed the names. | |
| 178029111 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-03 00:33 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Hi Flap Slimy Outward,When you downgraded this portion of road from highway=secondary to highway=tertiary, did you release that it was at secondary because it is part of the movements for the intersection of State St/12300 S? This is a special "ThrU-Turn" intersection, where driver... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | No, I did not realize that at all. I didn't see any special turn restriction relations that would have given me information to act differently. I will revert this changeset as well (maybe you can create the appropriate turn restriction relations to convey that information?). | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Thank you for reverting. Those turn restrictions are already in place, added as part of https://osm.org/changeset/17169932 in 2013 | |
| 178029559 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-02-03 01:03 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Hi Flap Slimy Outward,This is not the first time I've said that there are times when a highway numbers belong in the name=* tag. With you deleting the appropriate name=*, name:prefix=*, and name:full=* tags, the North Salt Lake addresses along this road can't correctly match to this st... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I wasn't sure where Beck Street began and Highway 89 ended. It appeared to be along the incomplete at-grade intersection with the frontage road, but I wasn't sure.Also, shouldn't ref=US_89 be enough? Or does the highway specifically need something in name=* for addresses to work ... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Thank you for reverting.I would not be surprised if data consumers use ref=* to match addr:housenumber=* in other places, but in this case no, the ref=* on its own is not sufficient, because:1. That leaves out the street prefix, which is a required part of the address (e.g. "North"... | |
| 177825620 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-28 23:51 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Udarian ♦792 | a few questions, first along its run South Dixie Highway is tagged unsigned_ref=SR 5 so I think changing that would would require larger conversations, at minimum in the local-florida channel on the OSMUS slack but ideally with the larger US community as there is likely a good reason for the existin... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | 1. All I did was change unsigned_ref=SR_5 to unsigned_ref=FL_5.2. The portion between 344th Street and 7th Street has grade-separated interchanges with HEFT. Since that portion has no other at-grade intersections (except for the Baymont hotel), I interpreted these two facts (combined with the fact... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Udarian ♦792 | South Dixie Highway is a long road, saying that it is an expressway is incorrect. I may understand if US 1 was dual carriageway for the area around the ramps for HEFT, but it isn't, it is dual carriageway for basically all of South Dixie Highway, so saying that this small segment is an expressw... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I'm not sure you understood what I said. I didn't tag that specified portion of US 1 as an expressway because it was divided. I tagged that portion as an expressway because it 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 has grade-sepatated interchanges with HEFT and lacks at-grade intersections elsewhere along that ... | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | Udarian ♦792 | I have started a conversation on the forums to see what the Florida community would prefer to standardize on when it comes to SR vs FL. If you want to comment there feel free, the link is https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/unifying-florida-ref-and-other-related-tagging-sr-vs-fl/141158 .as for... | |
| 169266279 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-21 22:14 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Hello, the source you provided doesn't seem to explicitly show these roads as official proposals. Even if they were proposed at some point, and thus now outdated, there wouldn't be a point in mapping them as recent ESRI imagery shows that road right-of-ways have been graded over in these c... |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright then... Well, what's to be done about the tertiary stubs at Tule Springs Parkway and Theme Road (near a park)? | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Tule Springs could be downgraded to unclassified since right now it is technically a dead-end road, though considering it is actively being expanded—the rest of it under construction right now—I wouldn't overthink it. Summerlin West currently has a lot of roads in this situation rig... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright 👍 (comes back 6 months later)So, uh, this area (and these roads) have changed a lot in half a year. Using BetterOSM.org, I can overlay these older edits with the new ones I made earlier today. You were right in that most of the proposed highways don't match with what's been co... | |
| 177825987 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-29 00:12 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Udarian ♦792 | why did you change HEFT from SR 821 to FL 821, what was the reasoning behind this change?Happy mapping,Udar. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Consistency with (AFAIK) the rest of the US. Also, the rest of Florida uses FL xx instead of SR xx, so this is also consistency. | |
| 177671531 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-25 07:56 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | What does the relation type "superroute" accomplish? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | "Superroute" allows you to group together the components of a route. For example: A superroute containing I-15 northbound and I-15 southbound. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Interesting! This might be better than the generic "type=route" currently in use on pretty much all the rest of these multi-state road routes. I started a forum post to see if there can be consensus to do this nationwide.https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/superroute-type-for-multi-s... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I mostly began doing this in California, Nevada, and Arizona since that's my "local" edit area. (I-15 goes through all three, which is how I ended up in Montana.) I'm not sure what the consensus is nationwide, but since the few instances where I have done it haven't received... | |
| 177745609 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-27 03:23 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Merged 𝙪𝙣divided highways! *quintuple facepalm* |
| 177455580 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-20 02:17 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | RunTrails ♦27 | Thanks, sorry I forgot about the Building part :) |
| 170807581 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-22 03:18 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | happilymappingrway ♦10 | The US Postal Service requires the use of prefixes in all street names for the delivery of mail, therefore I think you should revert your removals of prefixes. This causes chaos for residents for mail and GPS navigation In cars and on phones. The Phoenix area uses directional prefixes throughout, so... |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | According to streetlevel imagery, not all street signs in the area display directional prefixes. Therefore, adding them would be a violation of the "on-the-ground" rule. This doesn't even count the fact that some streets' directional prefixes are "mismatched" (i.e., &qu... | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | TheArguer ♦1 | The Utah approach was specifically agreed upon by users local to that community. For a number of reasons, mapping the grid system in Maricopa County does not lend itself as well to the approach taken in Utah. The on-the-ground rule is just as much "how the locals refer to it" as it is &quo... | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | No, I'll admit it: I don't know why they haven't been removed. I didn't explain this earlier, but I didn't remove ALL directional prefixes, just the mismatched ones. Why weren't they removed anyway? | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | TheArguer ♦1 | They weren't removed because they are part of the official street names. This is evidenced by the fact that non-LED street signs at all City of Phoenix intersections (i.e., ones that aren't at stoplights) include both the prefix and suffix. This is also the case for most all street signage... | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | TheArguer ♦1 | Hi, I’m planning to revert this changeset, as well as the others where you removed prefixes in the Phoenix area, based on my understanding of the on-the-ground rule (i.e., prefixes are consistently signed across the metro, this isn’t Utah). Let me know if you have any concerns. | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I've already stated my concerns and objections to their removal; please read above to find them. Thanks. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | watmildon ♦311 | Hello. I have stumbled upon this set of edits and agree it should be reverted. Name fields in the US include directional and types when they are know (signed or from address data etc). If you have a rendered or app that you'd like to not see those in, well, ask the owner of that to eliminate th... | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | pwbriggs ♦326 | For transparency, linking to OSMUS Slack thread regarding these changes: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCJ2P6KCH/p1768535533160899.Thanks! | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I am unable to access that link, as I need an email address from OSM itself to access Slack. | |
| 11 | ~ 5 months ago | watmildon ♦311 | You don't need any particular email provider to join. Anyone can join from this link. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | watmildon ♦311 | This has been opened with DWG as Ticket#2026011610000455. | |
| 176561653 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-29 07:13 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | Hi, this is regarding ways 405356768, 729774079, 970289554, 1122295250, 167078563, & 1002571690.First, the highway=* tags for these ways should be reverted to highway=motorway. highway=motorway best reflects their role in the road network and design. Tagging these as highway=primary causes i... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This portion of roadway between California Avenue and Colorado Boulevard has at-grade intersections with service roads and other amenities. This means that it is not a freeway, but rather, a limited-access highway (expressway). | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | crushtheserpent ♦27 | While true that those segments intersect with one service road, that service road begins and ends at the segments in question and is for accessing a small Caltrans yard in the motorway median; the other connections are with surface roads or motorway links. These segments are signed as freeways. ... | |
| 177199215 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-13 22:57 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This was an automatic summary added by Vespucci. The actual edit summary should have been, "Redowngraded tertiary(_link) roads to unclassified since Transit Station Street (and, by extension, 1st Street) are already secondary). |
| 177086766 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-11 08:09 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | highway = tertiary_LINK?! *quadruple facepalm* |
| 176720476 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2026-01-01 21:48 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Did I say re-align ROAD? I mean re-align landuses *triple facepalm* |
| 175784654 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-11 04:14 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Hi,This probably shouldn't go in ref=*. fut_ref=* on the ways should be fine, but the ideal way to do this would be a route relation with network=US:I:Future |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I also created three relations for Future I-7/9: one for the northbound direction, one for the southbound direction, and a super-relation containing the other two. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | I see now, that's good. The way refs should still probably only be CA 99 though, especially in this case where the possible Interstate designations are not really very far along. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | idkwhatname2use ♦15 | What made you decide to add this to OSM? California Streets and Highways Code §§ 307 and 309 already define two different state routes designated as Route 7 and 9 respectively, so this is definitely not going to happen before 2027 when bills passed by the California Legislature in 2026 go ... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | @idkwhatname2use This isn't about California State Routes 7 and 9. This edit concerns a new 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲, which could be designated either I-7 or I-9 (but (probably) not both). My motivation for adding Future I-7/9 to OSM was its inclusion on the Wikipedia article &q... | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | compdude ♦173 | I'd strongly encourage you to move the Future I-7/I-9 to the fut_ref=* tag. Having it in the ref=* tag just adds clutter to the map. Also, calling this Future I-7 or I-9 is pretty much just roadgeek speculation imho. | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | First of all, these highways are already tagged as fut_ref=I 7;I 9. Secondly, this isn't "roadgeek speculation" because it represents an actual plan by California to add an Interstate to State Route 99. In fact, that's why it's been upgraded to freeway standards and will soo... | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | Please delete the relations and revert the ref=* tags. This does not even qualify for fut_ref=* because no Future Interstate corridor signs have gone up.If you need to make a map of where the routes would go, you can do that in an Overpass query that lists the way IDs and upload the result to Wi... | |
| 9 | ~ 6 months ago | compdude ♦173 | Sorry, but I'm going to remove it from the ref=* tag. It's just unnecessary clutter. And while Caltrans certainly has been upgrading CA 99 to Interstate highway standards, do you have any actual evidence that Caltrans is actively working on giving CA 99 an Interstate number? If not, then t... | |
| 10 | ~ 6 months ago | compdude ♦173 | I've reverted this change in changeset 176658877. | |
| 11 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | For the hundredth time, there's a Wikipedia article on Future Interstate corridors, with 7/9 being one of them. If this isn't evidence for the existence of a future I-7/I-9, then I don't know what is (I don't live in California, but I've been there many times). | |
| 12 | ~ 6 months ago | idkwhatname2use ♦15 | CA 99 being a future interstate has been roadgeek speculation for well over a decade at this point. Also, as I and Minh Nguyen pointed out, California Streets and Highways Code already define a Route 7 and Route 9 (California state law does not distinguish between any type of state route, whether th... | |
| 13 | ~ 6 months ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | Since it seems there’s still a disagreement, let’s continue the discussion on the forum where others can weigh in:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/future-interstate-designation-along-california-state-route-99/139900 | |
| 176242137 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-22 03:11 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I made a typo in both the comment and the source. The correct URL is https://osm.org/changeset/176165267. |
| 176165267 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-20 05:04 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I'm a little confused with what the motorway ways with the sand surface are intended to represent. If these are under construction ways, I would either add no surface tag at all, since an under-construction road's surface changes rapidly based on the progress of the project, or add the... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I guess that makes sense. But here's the thing: I'm not actually sure if any of the new roads I just mapped are temporary or not (with respect to the construction timeline). The random track road I created linking Summerlin Parkway westbound to the freeway link is temporary for su... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | To my knowledge, there doesn't seem to be any sort of project like that happening on the 215. My guess, based on OpenWeb imagery, is that these are just temporarily walled-off shoulders for construction vehicle access and for workers to have a barricaded area to do work on the overpasses/pillar... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay. In that case, should I just delete these "new" freeways since, according to you, they're just temporary? | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Yes, I think so | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, will do! | |
| 175986584 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-16 03:41 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | There probably shouldn't be a natural area encompassing all of Las Vegas as not the entirety of the city is sand. This tag should only apply to desert sand on its own rather than the ground on which the city is built on top of. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay. Should I delete this polygon, too? | |
| 176161437 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-20 00:45 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Also, what's with that one-lane freeway located between the two carriageways of the 215? Is that a lane widening? HOV lanes? An "express" lane (as described on Wikipedia, for non-locals to drive with fewer exits)? A tollway? Something else? Does this even matter? (And why did I not re... |
| 176158488 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-19 22:00 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This is "Attempted to fix tags (P2)" |
| 175782875 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-11 02:32 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | Abbreviations shouldn't be used in refs. "I 42 FUT" should be "I 42 Future". |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | Additionally, ref=* on ways, while deprecated, is also only for *signed* routes, which I 42 Future is not. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | `ref` is deprecated for ways? I don't think that's true at all, especially for highways. Also, Wikipedia says that I-42 has already been Congressionally designated. Does this not count? | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | Route refs are deprecated in favor of relations. Congressionally designated isn't signed, and considering there's talks of removing the Martin Luther King Junior Expressway in Tulsa, I doubt I 42 is happening at all. I 444 is congressionally designated but hasn't been signed since t... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | There's also Interstate 505 in Portland. It's *never* been signed. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Both cases can be indicated by `unsigned_ref=I 444` and `unsigned_ref=I 505`, respectively. Wikipedia's "List of future Interstate highways" article lists I-3, I-7/9, I-42, and I-67 as one- and two-digit future highways that will become Interstates. Also, the OSM Wiki specifically sta... | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | Yeah, backward compatibility for software that hasn't been updated in almost 20 years. It's deprecated. | |
| 175872431 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-13 06:48 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | To answer your question regarding classification here—I wouldn't overthink it. It probably makes more sense to tag a short road leading to a few smallish gated communities as unclassified/residential. The NHS designation is here automatically because this small section of roadway is part ... |
| 170274912 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-11 06:09 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | Please don't abbreviate in refs, for the same reason we don't abbreviate in names. Would you mind taking another shot at this or rolling it back? Especially where it's ambiguous, since there's bound to be a numbered route with a busway somewhere. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I thought that the convention was to abbreviate modifiers like Business. Since these are `ref` tags and not `name` tags, abbreviations should be allowed here, at least according to the OSM Wiki. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | The problem with that is machines are stupid about expanding abbreviations, and that doesn't change with the key. That's the chief concern with name tags. | |
| 175826589 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-12 02:16 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | archpdx ♦551 | It's convention for modifiers in ref to be left unabbreviated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging/Routes#Nationwide |
| 175736276 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-09 22:50 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | HI Flap Slimy Outward, please note that according to local conventions documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions the directional prefixes that you added to many streets (the "South" in "South Freedom Boulevard") should be captured via the name:pref... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | These roads in particular lacked any `name:prefix=*`, `name:suffix=*`, or `name:full=*` tags, and the already-existing `name=*` tags had no directional prefixes or suffixes whatsoever (AFAIK). | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Yes, that's correct. The prefix was missing from these streets. Then you added a prefix to some of these streets ("Freedom Boulevard" -> "North Freedom Boulevard", "Center Street" -> "West Center Street") in the name=* tag, when that complete name a... | |
| 175652476 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-08 08:02 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | willkmis ♦218 | Hey, I noticed you edited the end point of this freeway, which has been the subject of edit wars in the past. My understanding, per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Map_features#Highway_classifications, is that freeways ends should be mapped to agree with the signs. There are big signs... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I feared exactly this would happen. A photo from inside the tunnel is a sign indicating the start of I-10, even though it legally begins at Lincoln Blvd. I will change this accordingly. | |
| 175522880 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-04 22:30 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Since this is such a short section and these are only minor informal at-grade track road connections, mostly made by by maintenance vehicles, off road vehicles, and traffic trying to take shortcuts from the frontage roads, I think leaving it as motorway here should be fine. Most Interstates and rura... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Well, isn't one of the rules for Interstates be that they don't have at-grade intersections? (I know this isn't an Interstate [yet], but still...) | |
| 175382182 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-02 01:30 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Did I say, "Corrected road direction"? I meant that I re-aligned road geometry based on... Blah, blah, blah, it's too long and verbose to list here. |
| 174400582 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-09 02:19 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | Hello,On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a sourc... |
| 175296794 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-30 01:51 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/relation/13404750. Please correct (or delete) the destroyed relation. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I fixed it; thanks for informing me! | |
| 172372482 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-24 04:08 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | LordGarySugar ♦328 | This changeset incorrectly connected elements on different layers together, for example the Brightline flyover over Blue Diamond road, where nonexistent railway=crossing nodes were also added. I've tried to correct all of these, but it's hard to verify due to the size and variety of change... |
| 174707924 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-15 23:34 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | This is A LOT of different changes across the entire state. Please break up your changes by what the change is and/or into smaller geographical areas. I see changes consisting of: moving name_1 to alt_name, moving numerical names from alt_name=* to name=*, moving highway numbers out of name=*, s... |
| 174835853 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-18 22:26 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | OddlyAngled ♦128 | this looks a bit odd, what are you trying to accomplish with the Sierra Nevada relation? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Wikipedia lists the Sierra Nevada mountain range as one of the boundaries of the Mojave Desert. Having a feature (or a set of features) representing it could make displaying that fact a lot easier. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | OddlyAngled ♦128 | sure, and that's good. we can definitely use one.couple things to note:* passes/mountains shouldn't be moved unless there is a reason - we've been trying to get these aligned with the latest 3dep lidar scans, which are unlikely to coincide with administrative boundaries. moving ... | |
| 174360866 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-08 06:23 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | TopoNick ♦1 | Hi there! I noticed that this changeset reverted some recent surface tagging I added on I-15 in Las Vegas. Was that intentional? If so, could you please share the reasoning so I can better understand?Also, for future edits, it would be helpful to split very large changesets into smaller, more fo... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | That was completely unintentional. JOSM's edit conflict resolver is usually something I want to avoid because I might need to sync all the data in my active layer, which might not even work. Also, I was mainly adding NHS and "is_in:state" tags to major cross-country highways, so I don... | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | You are still responsible for the data that you upload. If you see a conflict resolver then you need to actually try to resolve the conflict instead of just overwriting good data that others uploaded.If you want to avoid edit conflicts, then try to edit fewer things at a time and try to not take... | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | TopoNick ♦1 | I agree with ZLima12. Next time, please try doing smaller and more targeted edits. When conflicts arise, that's a clear sign that too much has been changed at once and those warnings should not be ignored. | |
| 173241739 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-13 18:16 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/edits-to-name-tags-of-ecuador-relation/136829https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173255056 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | flapnuta ♦9 | Por favor corregir: official_name:es \tRepublica del Ecuador(República)Y añadir official_name=* | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | muralito ♦2,159 | Hice mi parte. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174926510Hay unos 25 idiomas que no conozco, y se precisa mas información porque tienen distinto valor entre el nodo y la relacion. | |
| 174492756 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-11 05:03 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Yushclay ♦24 | Non-highway CA-56 is trunk road per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines. Don't think it's too authoritative, but I'll reverse a little bit of your downgrade back to trunk as a local. You had the right idea for CA-56 east of Shoal Creek... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Shoal Creek Drive is a random residential street, not a trunk road or motorway. Why that one in particular? Also, roads in OSM are (for the most part) classified based on their importance in the road network. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | Yushclay ♦24 | I'm just letting that stop there since that's the first traffic light after Rancho Carmel Dr. I'd say my OSM editor philosophy leans towards what matches what's been built as opposed to importance when it comes to road stubs so that the symbology on the map matches the driver exp... | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | You say that Shoal Creek Drive is the first at-grade intersection of CA 56? Highway=trunk has nothing to do with that whatsoever. That can be indicated with either the combination expressway=yes and access_control=full or highway=motorway. | |
| 174445485 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-10 05:19 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I didn't get a chance to add a description, so I'll do it now: I added "Home Depot" as the operator. |
| 168584782 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-07 03:32 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | I think this made a bunch of duplicate road relations |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | just FYI | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I noticed a bit too late...I'll manually check every road route relation in the county and remove the duplicates. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | tekim ♦697 | Somehow https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1426397619 is not a member of a relation for CR 14 1/2, and I think it should be (SD Mapman removed the ref tag so now there is no indication in OSM that this is part of that county rounte). | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | So when I was investigating the area, I noticed that the addresses along that road were all "14th Street" so that's what I set the 'name' as. Did some further investigation this morning and found streetblade signage for County Road 14 1/2 so I added a segment after the last ... | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Note that the county road relations were determined to only be needed where the pentagon signs are (mainly along I-25) since everything else is streetblades. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:network=US:CO:Weld which I updated to reflect the discussion. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | tekim ♦697 | Thanks. I was contacted by a local resident who indicated that the parts inside the city are both CR 14 1/2 and 14th Street. I am not personally familiar with Fort Lupton, but in other parts of Colorado this isn't unusual, and prior to the edits in September, it did have a ref=CR 14 1/2 tag. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | West of US 85 it's a bit confusing too, just updated that as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174469148 | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | tekim ♦697 | Thanks again. It is the bit East of 85 that is the issue for this local data user. | |
| 174269176 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:17 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | fortera_au ♦1,555 | Hi, before making this change, did you check out each of the objects? There is at least one node that you've now marked as highway=road, making me think this was an unchecked automated edit. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | fortera_au ♦1,555 | Hi, before making this change, did you check out each of the objects? There is at least one node that you've now marked as highway=road, making me think this was an unchecked automated edit. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269... | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | There were ~400 objects (IIRC), so I really only checked one (a random junction in California). | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | fortera_au ♦1,555 | Then this should be reverted, as the Automated Edits Code of Conduct hasn't been followed.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Oh look, a building that is now a road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/87250237/history/10Oh look, a road that was removed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419581982/history/4Oh look, a proposed bypass: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1426129772/history/2And many more. These ways w... | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | May I also remind you of this paragraph of the Automated Edits Code of Conduct: The purpose of this policy is to avoid the database being damaged. Be very aware that it can be hard or impossible to revert or 'roll back' inappropriate edits, particularly where further edits have been ma... | |
| 174268519 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:35 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268514 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:34 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268509 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:34 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268481 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:32 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | dmjab13 ♦113 | please keep edits to one continent or area |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,150 | Hi there,did you check in with the accounts who created the "road" keys along these milestones? Because to me it looks very deliberate and shouldn't be removed or altered without prior discussion. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSM... | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174268503 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:33 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174269180 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:18 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174269170 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:17 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174269164 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:17 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦269 | Almost the same issues as with CS #174269137, although this one does edit ways, at the very least. Many of these ways are areas, though, used to mark the areas of the corresponding road (granted, they might be better replaced by area:highway but this isn't what you had intended).For compari... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174269157 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:16 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | dmjab13 ♦113 | please keep edits to one continent or area |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | highway=road only works for linear features, not individual nodes. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269157 | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174269141 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:16 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦269 | Same issues as with #174269137: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174269137 --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269141 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | dmjab13 ♦113 | please keep edits to one continent or area | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174269137 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:15 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦269 | Clearly an automated edit: You're replaced highway=yes indiscriminatingly into highway=road without ever checking if the data is even correct. In fact, both this and CS #174269141 didn't even edit any ways but rather guideposts (which follow *=yes pattern to denote the target group), a cle... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | ika-chan! ♦407 | Undone in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174274003. Please consult the community at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ first. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,150 | thanks ika-chan!Flap, please talk first before embarking on these endeavors. thank you --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269137 | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Thanks ika-chan!, I've also gone ahead and reverted all additional changesets in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174269077 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:11 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | dmjab13 ♦113 | please keep edits to one continent or area |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | habi ♦2,194 | Keeping changesets local makes them *much* easier to review, as you've requested.I've only looked at one node in your changeset, namely https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/943028847 If you'd looked at the available aerial imagery there it's immediately evident that this node s... | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | habi ♦2,194 | For https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1167110204 any highway-tag seems unnecessary | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | habi ♦2,194 | Same for https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136967370 | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | habi ♦2,194 | > Same for osm.org/changeset/136967370Sorry, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1616113575/ | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | habi ♦2,194 | All the higway=yes values you replaced on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228504528 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228504529 can - in my opinion - simply be removed. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | habi ♦2,194 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2793461769 is also tagged unnecessarily, if you'd have looked at the history of the node. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174268966 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:04 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268963 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:04 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268528 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:35 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | fortera_au ♦1,555 | Hi, before making this change, did you check out each of the objects? You've marked what looks like a dirt road as highway=secondary purely based on it being tagged as road=secondary, making me think this was an unchecked automated edit. --- Published usi... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | No, this was not an automated edit at all. I made sure to check the highways before publishing them, since some values of road=* were typos (e.g., road=unclasified). Also, the fact that a road is unpaved doesn't inherently mean it can't be a secondary road (I just read the article for trac... | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | fortera_au ♦1,555 | The one marked as secondary definitely doesn't look as such, it looks like a service road alongside a secondary road.I've also checked another one where road=footpath was changed to highway=footway, however aerial imagery isn't clear enough to determine whether it's a footpat... | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,688 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 173909264 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-29 03:39 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | *Martin* ♦661 | I agree that the edit is valid, just unfortunately some renderrers depend on boundary=administrative on border ways. For example https://www.freemap.sk/#map=9/48.764322/22.604240&layers=X |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | It's not just me. Many other people have been doing that over the past few years. In fact, I think that adding boundary=administrative on ways because it appears on a particular renderer (Freemap Slovakia, in this case) is "tagging for the renderer" and should be avoided. Instead, the... | |
| 173991618 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-30 19:05 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | If there is, in fact, a sign indicating its name, I couldn't find it, and it's definitely not along the main highway. Is it buried on some random intersection hidden from Street View? |
| 168993087 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-16 04:26 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | Access restrictions should not be tagged with turn restrictions --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168993087 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This was an option provided by Vespucci, so I decided to test it out by adding them to places I knew would match up with the data in OSM. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | To be more specific, the issue with this approach is that when someone marks the road open again the turn restrictions aren't likely to be removed since the access tag is the usual method to mark a road that's closed. | |
| 173909035 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-29 03:26 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦236 | Hi Flap Slimy Outward, your claim does not stand, it is not the same situation. Please revert borders of Russia to the previous state. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | What do you mean it is not the same situation? Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 (which isn't internationally recognized) and the other four in 2022 (which also aren't internationally recognized). What's the difference here? I don't see any. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦236 | The difference is that Crimea had some voting about annexation in 2014, there are some legal documents in which Russia recognizes Crimea as its part, and Russia has full control of it, while for the rest of Ukraine territories, they are under occupation, not recognized by Russia also, it is ongoing ... | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, Russia also held a "referendum" in those four oblasts (I put it in quotes because the international community views them as illegitimate). Also, just to clarify, Russia actually 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘥 them, not just occupied them because they're at war. In the case of the ... | |
| 173459509 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-18 16:51 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | Hello Flap,Can you explain why you changed the tag "old_name=*" to "street:old_name=*"? There's no information regarding this tag on the wiki and the only use cases are in this changeset.What is the purpose of this tag? --- Pub... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I explained this in detail on a previous changeset involving these ways. Long story short, the name of the associated street was Brandywine Way, but this segment is no longer in use, despite being completely intact otherwise. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | I understand that part. My question was why you changed the "old_name=*" to a tag you made? The old_name tag was correct as it was. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Because the key `old_name` does not apply to the sidewalk. If I had tagged the sidewalk as `old_name=Brandywine Way`, that would've meant that the sidewalk itself used to be named "Brandywine Way," which is incorrect. `street:old_name` perfectly encapsulates the situation I am account... | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | Thank you for the explanation. Whereas it is good to preserve historical information, this tag probably could be removed altogether since the street no longer exists. If you want to preserve this information you can add it to OpenHistoricalMap instead of creating a new tag. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Except that I have an objections: it still does exist (go to this area on Bing Maps Aerial, for example), but it's not used anymore (hence disused:highway=residential). | |
| 172227788 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-21 02:22 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | Why did you upgrade this section 2100 S to primary? I see no world where the road is primary: it's been bypassed as a through route by SR-201 and I-80, it does not have exceptionally high traffic volumes compared to nearby secondary roads like 1300 S or 1300 E, it does not "feel" like... |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Because it's the continuation of SR 210. I was unsure if the non-freeway segment of SR 210 had the same/similar traffic volumes to the freeway segments. However, based on your comment, it appears as if it doesn't, so I won't undo your changes here (that and the fact that I don't ... | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | *SR-201, not SR-210 (which is the road up little cottonwood). The continuation of the freeway section of SR-201 is functionally I-80, not this surface street. Really, I find that a highway designation is a pretty meaningless indicator of what functional class the road should be. There's a c... | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay then, thanks for the information! (And for correcting me on my typos 😅) | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Aside from the classification issues already discussed, this changeset is also incorrect for adding the ramps and small portion of 900 W to SR 201, as it is legally defined as discontinuous. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Is it? Wikipedia says, "However, an eastbound traveler wanting to continue on the surface portion of SR-201 to State Street must exit on 900 West, head north briefly and then turn eastbound on 2100 South; a westbound traveler on 2100 South wishing to connect to the freeway must take an on-ramp ... | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information on exact highway routings. Ground signage and state databases (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/ for Utah) are much more reliable, although still not infallible. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | Literally part of the quote that you omitted in your first [...] is "Prior to 1997, this connection was direct". Meaning that the connection is no longer direct, and you must first leave SR 201 to continue on it. | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I guess that makes sense. I'll put that on me for misinterpreting the text. Thanks! | |
| 170497868 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-15 20:20 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! You add the tag highway:motorway=trunk to the highway (comment Added new tags for a proposal) Can you please show us the proposal (search inside wiki)? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Motorway_classifications | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Hi,I would not start changing tags until the proposal has been voted on. Especially since as it stands, I think that the proposal would not pass.Instead, for a case like this, I would suggest these tags:- highway=primary- expressway=yes- access_control=fullexpressway=yes alone wo... | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | highway=motorway does NOT indicate a road's role in the network. Rather, it's applied based on physical characteristics. All of these roads (plus Rancho Drive between Rainbow Blvd and Ann Rd, for some reason, according to Wikipedia) are controlled-access highways: There are no at-grade int... | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Under the 2021 classification guidelines, motorway does indicate that a road is in the topmost level of importance. Trunks are also at this same level of importance, and when you look at these two classes together, they should form an interconnected network connecting large cities. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | ...which is why I tagged it as highway:motorway=primary... | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Yes, but this tag is not recognized by anyone and is kind of a trolltag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag). Data consumers are going to look at the highway=* value and think "okay, so this is a freeway at the topmost importance level". At that point, if they do not pay atte... | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Hm, how about highway=primary + motorway=yes? | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | I would support that, but there are a couple concerns that I'd want addressed first. motorway=yes is currently used to mean motorway-like access restrictions, not physical characteristics. So, there would need to be a plan/proposal to migrate the existing data using this tag to some other key. ... | |
| 173561358 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-21 02:07 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | Hello Flap,I have a question about your tagging. of this stretch of road. According to the wiki, this shouldn't be classified as a motorway since there's an intersection with traffic signals on it which means it would most likely be a trunk or lower.I also looked into your proposed... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | 1. This specific road section, the one I changed just now, does, in fact, have no traffic lights, qualifying it as fully controlled-access highway.2. https://osm.wiki/Proposal:Motorway_classifications | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Baconcrisp ♦143 | I double checked and there are traffic lights at that intersection which can be seen in available Mapillary(2018) and in Bing satellite imagery(2024). Do you have a more recent verifiable source to confirm this intersection has changed? This is a standard model for these types of intersections in Ut... | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | 1. You're completely right. There is a gantry right above the SPUI junction. However, by convention, the `traffic signals` node should be placed at the location where vehicles need to stop. In this case, it's before the stop marking line visible in Bing Maps Aerial. That's where I pla... | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | (Also, I just realized that my proposal is still in its draft phase, partially because I needed to come up with a better tagging scheme first.) | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Done | |
| 172227567 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-21 02:05 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | dknelson9876 ♦125 | What error are you referring to? As a local, I can say that this highway legitimately has a number, and a nickname, but no actual signposted name. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | If you run the validator in JOSM, it will complain that there's an "alt_name without name." If the name "2100 South Freeway" isn't signed anywhere, that can be indicated with `name:signed=no`. If there is no other name that the freeway goes by, wouldn't the nicknam... | |
| 173560566 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-21 01:09 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | Does the ref actually continue past the last interchange? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173560566 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | According to Wikipedia, yes it does, apparently, despite clearly not being built to Interstate standards (no physical barrier between the carriageways). | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | I wouldn't consider that necessarily a reliable source but a starting place for further research. Also a single-carriageway expressway would be highway=trunk, expressway=yes, oneway=no. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,461 | Any chance we could get some Mapillary imagery? I understand it's going to be an imposition for most people to do that given how remote the turnpike is. I'm just not convinced Wikipedia's not making a rounding error. | |
| 173561458 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-21 02:17 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | The reason this road is primary is that there is no corresponding interchange to 3300 S from northbound I-215 to the one from southbound I-215. 3300 S is the primary road in the area, and this part of Wasatch Boulevard serves as the access to 3300 S from I-215. Reverting this change as it breaks thi... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | This is only an incomplete interchange. There is no way for southbound drivers to enter I-215 unless they also go to 3900 South. Similarly, northbound drivers on Wasatch Blvd have no direct access to the freeway anymore, unless they again turn onto 3900 South. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Oregonian3 ♦58 | Exactly. The only reason this stretch of road is primary is that it serves as the northbound off-ramp from I-15 to 3300 S. In fact, the fact that we have incomplete interchanges here is the only reason why it's primary. If there were an on-ramp to access 3300 S directly from I-15 northbound the... | |
| 169081471 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-17 21:30 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | 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... | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Hmm, I don't know, I think I would support highway=primary+expressway=yes here. The segment is fairly short, and it doesn't seem like the freeway section is more important than the non-freeway section. So, I think they should be at the same classification level. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | If we want to show that it is controlled access, we can use access_control=full | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | For the hundredth time, highway=motorway does NOT indicate a road's importance in the network! Quoting Joseph RP from earlier, "the freeway section of the 93 Business loop is only tagged [as] a motorway for its physical characteristic rather than its importance, and would be a primary road... | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | ZLima12 ♦292 | Under the 2021 classification guidelines, motorway does indicate that a road is in the topmost level of importance. And motorway=yes, as it is currently defined on the wiki, is talking about access restrictions, so it is not the right tag here. The closest thing is expressway=yes+access_control=full... | |
| 173501716 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-19 17:01 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | snoozingnewt ♦86 | This restored the highway issues. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | ...which is why I reverted this changeset (along with a few others) | |
| 173504514 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-19 18:07 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Reverted changesets 173472314, 173479852, 173501716, 173502305, 173502568, 173503941, and 173504156 |
| 172538993 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-27 18:19 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Still broke roadshttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173504156 |
| 172815918 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-04 04:50 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Sharko_J ♦98 | ??? |
| 173472314 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-19 01:22 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | This changeset moved a lot of roads incorrectly.Reverted. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173472314 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173479852 | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | You can use `(((._;>;);<;);>;);out meta;`instead of `(._;>;);out meta;`at the end of queries to get all connected ways so that you don't inadvertently move another feature. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I simply downloaded the Las Vegas relation using JOSM's "Download object" function. Per OSM's "Keep the history" rule, I used Ctrl + Shift + G to replace the old boundaries with the new ones, while preserving the history. (Maybe I'll disconnect the boundaries from ... | |
| 173377057 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-16 17:25 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! It is not allowed to copy data from Google maps! |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I also used the website provided. Basically, this node with barely any tags attached to it was moved to its proper location, so I added an address. I used Google Maps for those two, but I used the website (which is uh, interesting to say the least) for everything else. | |
| 171799189 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-11 18:52 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | I suspect that "yes" makes no more sense than "3" here. I suspect that "bus_bay" is a typing error for another tag, perhaps "width"?The only way to be sure is to check with a local. When I see "obviously wrong values like "bus_bay=3" but can... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I checked the history of the changed way, and it turns out that the street _does_ have a bus bay, and I used aerial imagery to determine which side(s) of it the bus bay is on. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | The bus bay isn't all the way up the street though? Where did you see the bus bay? | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I looked at it more closely using Bing Maps, and I couldn't find one. As a result, I removed the tag entirely. | |
| 173115545 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-10 22:45 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | I don't know if you're crazy, but clearly you are incapable of understanding what people say to you in plain English.In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170858581 I said:"Whenever you're thinking about making significant changes like this it's always a good idea t... |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | For now, please consider restricting yourself to edits that you have surveyed yourself in your own local town.If we get further complaints we'll have to consider taking further action. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Then explain the fixme requests that I tried to, you know, fix? (I feel like it can't be both ways.) | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | English is actually more popular. If you count solely native speakers maybe your claim is more true | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I counted speakers in geographically-defined Europe. This means I included speakers of Russian in European Russia but excluded English speakers in the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Oceania (since they're not part of Europe). Under THAT metric, there are more Russian speakers, since Russia (even o... | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | > European countries that speak Englishthere are English-language speakers (as learned language) outside this countries, far more than Russian-language speakers (as learned language) | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦269 | Great! Now count the amount of ESL speakers and compare THESE to people who know Russian (first AND secondary lang) in Europe. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | "there are English-language speakers (as learned language) outside this countries, far more than Russian-language speakers (as learned language)"How many of these L2 English speakers reside INSIDE Europe, but OUTSIDE of the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta?"Now count the amount of... | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | ☆Finvenkulo ♦92 | EOEŭropo ne estas nurangla, sed PLURLINGVA. Do la nomo estu en pluraj lingvoj: angla, germana, pola, rusa…PLEuropa nie jest tylko anglojęzyczna, ale wielojęzyczna. Więc nazwa powinna być w wielu językach: angielskim, niemieckim, polskim, rosyjskim…ENEurope is not En... | |
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I would do that, if not for the fact that names have a character limit (I read that from somewhere on the wiki). | |
| 11 | ~ 8 months ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | > How many of these L2 English speakers reside INSIDE Europe, but OUTSIDE of the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta?enough to offset difference of ru having more native speakersif you think otherwise, please share your statistics | |
| 12 | ~ 8 months ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | > How could we count these L1+2 Russian and English speakers?good starting point would be checking when English/Russian was taught in schools and how many people are alive from that yearsit will overestimate prevalence of Russian (many people in Russia-occupied countries were quite delibe... | |
| 172817380 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-04 06:27 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | EzyPup ♦10 | Fair |
| 172766363 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-02 21:18 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,150 | Hi there :)not sure the relation type should be "boundary".cheers --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172766363 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | ElliottPlack ♦943 | Hi, thanks for your contribution. You are correct that “America” is often used to refer to both North America and South America. However, in OpenStreetMap we don’t map continents this way:* A continent is not a `type=boundary`. Boundaries in OSM are for things like administrati... | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | EP_Repair ♦587 | reverted via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172803828 | |
| 172729831 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-02 02:26 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! Please check the oneway https://www.osm.org/way/1434764822. It appears to be an impassable section. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello (again)! Please check also the restriction relation https://www.osm.org/relation/10993475. She miss the role from | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Honestly, I think both of them might be caused by Vespucci failing to recognize my changes. Please read the changeset comment; maybe a fix in iD will do the job. | |
| 172549669 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-28 02:25 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/relation/19655354. What is the mean of the tag GEOIDFQ = 5001800US3202? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Honestly, I'm not sure. That tag came from TIGER data that came with the GEOJSON file I downloaded. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | I actually found a key tiger:GEOIDFQ (see https://taginfo.osm.org/keys/tiger%3AGEOIDFQ). But if you don't know the added value of a key, it's better to leave it out. And based on my findings https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78518131/postgis-3-4-0-tiger2023-state-data-new-column-geoid-ge... | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Again, I didn't add those GEOIDFQ tags myself; they came with the converted GEOJSON files I downloaded. A few other tags came automatically (like `NAME=Congressional District 1`), but I was easily able to either convert those into OSM-compatible tags (in this case, `name=Congressional District ... | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | You should only import data that OSM can interpret. I still believe that this data is internal Tiger information. Can I delete this data? | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | You can delete GEOIDFQ if it doesn't do anything. Like I said before, I already converted the remaining TIGER tags into OSM-readable tags. | |
| 172370063 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-24 01:32 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | While the NHS designation is definitely criteria for classifying a road as primary or higher, this might be a rare exception, as the NHS-designated segment of Casino Drive is only a spur leading to some casinos rather than a major transport hub like an airport or seaport. In fact, I'm not even ... |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it back. The map of state-maintained highways included this road in the Clark County section, so it's all based on that xD | |
| 172228211 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-21 02:58 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I would probably keep these terminal roads down at secondary just because they are important roads but not important through routes/arterials like Russell or Paradise Road, and only serve airport traffic.On another note, I recommend avoiding tagging roads like this one (https://www.openstreetmap... |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change them back. | |
| 172274629 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-22 05:23 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Source: https://youtu.be/4FDTP_nblE8?t=132 |
| 172227384 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-21 01:46 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | iandees ♦1,392 | Hello! I don't think the roads through the airport are expressways. The wiki lists the following properties for expressways:* is a dual carriageway (divided highway, dual_carriageway=yes)* has a higher than usual speed limit and accompanying design features, such as motorway-style sig... |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, sure thing! | |
| 171329176 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-01 18:29 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I don't think Red Rock Canyon Road should be trunk since it functions more as a scenic bypass rather than long-distance travel/commuter route (or a component of such a route) like 160 and 146 do. Primary reflects its importance as a high-traffic route that links these very touristy parks to the... |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Hm, alright then. I'll go change it back. My reasoning for it being trunk are as follows:* Residents of Blue Diamond can use SR 159 to get to the west-central portions of the valley quickly. The next-fastest route would be SR 160, then either Durango or I-15 to CC 215.* Residents of the val... | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Primary would be the ideal tag in a scenario in which you'd want to link a significant area (like Summerlin or Red Rock Canyon) within a population center (like Las Vegas). If 159 served to link longer-distance traffic to, from, or around Vegas, trunk would be the best tag, but functionally it ... | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I've since downgraded it (and portions of Hughes Park Drive) back to primary. Thanks! | |
| 171111206 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-28 03:30 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Did I say "Way" Boulevard? I meant Ryan Boulevard 🤦♂️ |
| 170858581 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-23 03:39 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | NLBRT ♦21 | Hi,Please refrain from making such uninformed changes. The "name=*" tag is used for the common name of the place/thing, or in this case, the country. Hindi is not the sole language, and so should be in "name:hi=*" instead (i.e, the tag for the name explicitly in Hindi charact... |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | Hello Flap Slimy Outward,Andy from the DWG here. Whenever you're thinking about making significant changes like this it's always a good idea to discuss with the relevant community.In this case, asking about it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/in/136 would have be... | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Here's where I got the idea that India (or Bharat) "prefers" Hindi over English:From Wikipedia: "According to Part XVII of the Constitution of India, Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union, along with English as an additional official language.&quo... | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | NLBRT ♦21 | 1) While yes, Hindi is native to India, but it's not the sole language. Moreover, it is only the official language of the Central Government, alongside English, and not a constitutionally designated "national" language. The Constitution allows states autonomy in language policy, prote... | |
| 170507414 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-16 06:12 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! Please notice the difference between a name of a street and addr:street (part of the adresse). |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I am well aware of the difference. Many roads have short cul-de-sacs with no name but have the same address as the road they're branching off of, hence why I tagged these as highway=pipestem and addr:street=(road that it branches off of). | |
| 169134941 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-19 02:53 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | aweech ♦376 | Hi, do you happen to know when UDOT and the County put up the historical signs? I haven't seen them before, but also it's been a few months since I was in the area. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | A good chunk of this route was named "Old Highway 91," which I moved into ref=US 91 Hist. Of course, it's no Historic Route 66, so maybe ref=US 91 Old (for the ways) and network=US:US:Old (for the relation)? The only problem is that I doubt it has any support or usage, for that matter... | |
| 165263890 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-22 02:58 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,052 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/953197342/history has maxspeed = 0 mph that was added in this editwhat maxspeed=0 mph is supposed to mean? If moving for vehicles (or some of them) is not allowed, then maybe one of access tags should be used and maxspeed=0 is not needed? |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I have fixed those tags now, thanks for reminding me 👍 | |
| 169798308 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-01 05:05 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/relation/13834231,https://www.osm.org/relation/15031205,https://www.osm.org/relation/15031207.You have deleted some of your items. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | osm.org/relation/13834231, https://www.osm.org/relation/15031205, https://www.osm.org/relation/15031207. Fixed typos | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Done ✅ | |
| 169086776 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 02:51 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Hello,Please note the long-distance 'trunk' network, at least for CA & NV, has been mostly settled for a couple years now - see documentation here:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nevada/highway_classificationhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classifi... |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I'm just curious—what's would be the objection to Route 50 being trunk here aside from the lack of a wider community consensus/documentation? I think it's a little unfair to cite the NV highway classification page on the OSM Wiki since it's still supposedly a draft, and has... | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | My objection is that one of the things settled on with the 2021 reclassification guidelines is that 'trunk' routes should be used to denote the "best" routes connecting major population centers. US 50 through Nevada isn't used preferentially to connect any two major populati... | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | While Ely is not as large as Reno or Las Vegas, it is a city with more population than other populated places in Nevada, like Panaca or Caliente. On a related note, Ely is a stop on US 93 when going from from Las Vegas to Idaho. The only other major stops along said route are Wells and Jackpot, neit... | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | Yes, Ely is a "major" stop on the route between Las Vegas and Twin Falls - US 93 is a "trunk" because it is the best route between Las Vegas and Twin Falls, Boise, etc; not because Ely is a stop on the way. US 50 through NV carries *regional* traffic to regionally important popul... | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Regarding Ely as a trunk destination—it is by no means as large as other distant smallish rural cities like Elko or Fallon, let alone a major metro like Vegas or Reno, but it is certainly a significant hub relative to its region. It has a population just shy of 4,000, which is a big deal in a ... | |
| 7 | ~ 11 months ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | The disagreement here is whether Ely counts as a "major population center" in the sense that it will induce the main E/W route to 'trunk'. In my opinion, maybe, but probably not. We're talking about upgrading 400+ miles of highway to 'trunk' on account of one town ... | |
| 8 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | "Major population center" is completely relative to the region. Ely is large enough in a massively empty region that it appears as a control city in places as far away as Las Vegas and shows up on maps and globes on-par with cities like Reno. Closer to another city, this is nothing, but th... | |
| 9 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | That sounds like a good idea. I guess this is what happens when the "community" of a particular state only has a few people living in it xDAlso, unrelated, but this is the second time I've been invited to a discussion on an OSM forum. | |
| 10 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | I started a thread for this topic on the forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/133312 | |
| 169377544 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-24 05:56 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Wyoming Avenue might be better tagged at tertiary here as it carries a higher amount of through traffic since it connects Palm Street all the way to Nellis Blvd in a straight line. It also has lane markings unlike the other residential roads, which is often an indicator of a street being a collecto... |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it back. | |
| 169320469 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-23 02:54 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Necessarycoot72 ♦72 | Hi, it seems that you might have messed up the Vegas valley relation (relation 18991913) it is currently is an unclosed relation |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | The term "Las Vegas Valley" refers to two things: The metropolitan area and the natural feature. The former's boundaries are exactly the same as Clark County's; for the latter, editors like Vespucci will warn me that valleys should not be closed ways. I am currently working to de... | |
| 169221071 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-21 03:00 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Thank you for fixing the Las Vegas city boundaries! These had been very incorrect for a long time until now. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | You're welcome! Which part(s) of the old border were inaccurate? | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Most of the northwestern borders, especially around the Kyle Canyon/Lone Mountain/Centennial Hills areas. A user had attempted to supposedly simplify the borders, incorrectly realigning the outermost borders to the Red Rock Canyon NCA boundary, engulfing the Paiute Res. boundaries, and deleting offi... | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay. Well, it appears that the bulk of this changeset focused on those two issues in particular. This makes me wonder: What's up with those random enclaves anyway? Most of them don't surround anything notable, like national parks, military areas (both of these are government property)... | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | The residential areas that are surrounded by but legally not part of Las Vegas are areas of unincorporated Clark County that were inhabited prior to the city's annexation of what is currently northwestern region. This allows for different zoning laws, like ones you'd find in a rural area, ... | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay, that's very interesting. I guess the next step would be to align them to roads if possible, but for now, I think I'll them them the way they are right now. | |
| 7 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | The boundaries not being snapped to the roads should be fine. It makes editing the roads and boundaries on their own far easier without having to worry about moving other attached ways around or accidentally breaking them. | |
| 8 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alrighty then. So far, I have been using your suggestion of adding bidirectional roads to borders (if they appear to use said roads for their boundaries) while drawing a new way between the carriageways of single-directional roads (like Sahara Avenue), while not snapping them to anything else (other... | |
| 169118683 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 16:39 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | idkwhatname2use ♦15 | This section is designated as a freeway by the California Transportation Commission. Also, there is a discussion on Slack related to OSM road classifications in California on Slack. Please refer to that before making any changes |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks! | |
| 169119317 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 16:55 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | idkwhatname2use ♦15 | There are no pedestrian crossings here except at the terminus. Is this why you downgraded the entire segment even though it meets motorway standards? |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Yes, it was...Exit 14 appears to be the last interchange that Los Patrones Parkway has before the freeway section terminates. | |
| 169221366 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-21 03:18 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Typo: I forgot to REMOVE the fixme from the Las Vegas relation. |
| 169086851 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 02:57 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change them back. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Remind me: Which parts of US 6 should remain trunk, and which ones should be reverted to primary again? | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will downgrade them accordingly. Thanks once again! | |
| 168462036 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-03 21:42 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | btwhite92 ♦109 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it back. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go check it out. Thanks! | |
| 169091788 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 06:42 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | Why were the name tags removed? They are part of the address for the road and signed as such. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | This made duplicates in Weld County of Morgan County routes... automation might not be the best way forward here |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | ZeLonewolf ♦580 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | ZeLonewolf ♦580 | You created version 1 of that relation... | |
| 168670575 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-08 22:41 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll revert this, too. | |
| 168576603 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-06 19:52 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | AndreaDp271 ♦149 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | bxl-forever ♦2,967 | ⚠️ 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 | ~ 1 year ago | AndreaDp271 ♦149 | Very strange, I hope it is not necessary to contact the Data Working Group | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | limes11 ♦1,062 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | bxl-forever ♦2,967 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | @limes11 It was a wrong sign error, as I completely forgot that new IDs should be saved with negative numbers. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | Lumikeiju ♦127 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay then. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | InsertUser ♦489 | Where was this mechanical edit discussed? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | iandees ♦1,392 | (This was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168584060) | |
| 167849751 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-20 01:51 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Minh Nguyen ♦637 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will fix these. | |
| 168252632 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-29 07:04 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Who even comes up with these rules anyway? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me again! | |
| 167967504 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-22 16:51 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Well, they are classified as collector/distributor roads, which would usually be classed as tertiary roads in the US. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me! I'll check them out. | |
| 167070746 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-01 23:52 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting discussion. I learned something new today! | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, thanks for informing me! | |
| 10 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks! | |
| 167380075 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-09 06:24 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright. I'll go ahead and fix these. | |
| 167465719 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-10 22:17 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | user_5359 ♦20,632 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Udarian ♦792 | why did you move the position of the city of Miami. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | InsertUser ♦489 | It also seems to have duplicated the Bermuda Triangle?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11845908616 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | I can add the node and boundary to a relation. | |
| 165695297 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-01 21:42 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | skquinn ♦812 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Hello, where did you source these directional prefixes from, particularly 'Southwest Galleria Drive'? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Allison P ♦1,146 | Galleria Drive is never South or Southwest. It is West all the way to Russell. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Glassman ♦6,019 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Please do not use Google content as a source. osm.wiki/Google |
| 165306179 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-22 22:13 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me! | |
| 164958136 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-14 21:23 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. (Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier.) | |
| 165007393 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-16 01:35 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Mxdanger ♦110 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Mxdanger ♦110 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM | |
| 162791594 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-21 18:04 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | vricciardulli ♦39 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | vricciardulli ♦39 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | Looks like DWG might be taking care of it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17388 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | 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 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Joseph R P ♦453 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | 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." |