| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 175826589 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-12 02:16 | 1 | 2025-12-13 05:18 | archpdx ♦550 | It's convention for modifiers in ref to be left unabbreviated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging/Routes#Nationwide |
| 175785678 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-11 05:08 | 1 | 2025-12-13 05:17 | archpdx ♦550 | Unless this has changed very recently, the only section of the 405 that has tolled express lanes is between the 605 and 73 |
| 175782875 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-11 02:32 | 1 | 2025-12-12 17:55 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,278 | Abbreviations shouldn't be used in refs. "I 42 FUT" should be "I 42 Future". |
| 175736276 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-12-09 22:50 | 1 | 2025-12-11 03:50 | dknelson9876 ♦62 | 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 | 2025-12-11 04:47 | 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 | 2025-12-11 05:06 | dknelson9876 ♦62 | 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 | 1 | 2025-12-09 05:00 | willkmis ♦188 | 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 | 2025-12-10 19:25 | 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 | 1 | 2025-12-06 23:53 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-12-08 17:27 | 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 | 1 | 2025-12-02 02:52 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-30 19:32 | SomeoneElse ♦13,585 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-30 07:36 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/relation/13404750. Please correct (or delete) the destroyed relation. |
| 2 | 2025-11-30 07:50 | Flap Slimy Outward | I fixed it; thanks for informing me! | |
| 172372482 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-24 04:08 | 1 | 2025-11-23 23:55 | LordGarySugar ♦146 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-23 04:59 | dknelson9876 ♦62 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-20 03:34 | OddlyAngled ♦118 | this looks a bit odd, what are you trying to accomplish with the Sierra Nevada relation? |
| 2 | 2025-11-20 16:31 | 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 | 2025-11-21 19:36 | OddlyAngled ♦118 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-19 03:32 | 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 | 2025-11-19 21:08 | 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 | 2025-11-20 02:57 | ZLima12 ♦286 | 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 | 2025-11-21 02:38 | 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. | |
| 174578715 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-12 21:39 | 1 | 2025-11-17 00:08 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-11-17 01:56 | 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 | 2025-11-17 15:07 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-11-18 01:23 | 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 | 2025-11-20 22:52 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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... | |
| 173241739 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-13 18:16 | 1 | 2025-10-14 04:32 | Flap Slimy Outward | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/edits-to-name-tags-of-ecuador-relation/136829https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173255056 |
| 2 | 2025-10-19 09:01 | flapnuta ♦9 | Por favor corregir: official_name:es \tRepublica del Ecuador(República)Y añadir official_name=* | |
| 3 | 2025-11-20 22:20 | muralito ♦2,095 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-12 03:48 | Yushclay ♦14 | 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 | 2025-11-13 02:40 | 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 | 2025-11-13 06:38 | Yushclay ♦14 | 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 | 2025-11-14 19:34 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-10 19:13 | 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 | 2025-07-08 16:01 | SD Mapman ♦48 | I think this made a bunch of duplicate road relations |
| 2 | 2025-07-08 16:02 | SD Mapman ♦48 | just FYI | |
| 3 | 2025-07-08 16:43 | Flap Slimy Outward | I noticed a bit too late...I'll manually check every road route relation in the county and remove the duplicates. | |
| 4 | 2025-11-10 00:08 | 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 | 2025-11-10 13:39 | SD Mapman ♦48 | 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 | 2025-11-10 13:54 | SD Mapman ♦48 | 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 | 2025-11-10 15:04 | 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 | 2025-11-10 15:29 | SD Mapman ♦48 | West of US 85 it's a bit confusing too, just updated that as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174469148 | |
| 9 | 2025-11-10 17:02 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-06 22:07 | fortera_au ♦1,441 | 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 | 2025-11-06 22:08 | fortera_au ♦1,441 | 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 | 2025-11-07 04:22 | Flap Slimy Outward | There were ~400 objects (IIRC), so I really only checked one (a random junction in California). | |
| 4 | 2025-11-07 04:27 | fortera_au ♦1,441 | 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 | 2025-11-07 11:21 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | 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 | 2025-11-07 11:45 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 7 | 2025-11-07 12:00 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:47 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268514 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:34 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:47 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268509 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:34 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:47 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268481 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:32 | 1 | 2025-11-06 14:24 | dmjab13 ♦62 | please keep edits to one continent or area |
| 2 | 2025-11-06 15:12 | silversurfer83 ♦3,732 | 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 | 2025-11-07 11:47 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174268503 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:33 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:46 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174269180 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:18 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:45 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174269170 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:17 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:45 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174269164 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:17 | 1 | 2025-11-06 06:18 | ManuelB701 ♦241 | 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 | 2025-11-07 11:45 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174269157 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:16 | 1 | 2025-11-06 14:24 | dmjab13 ♦62 | please keep edits to one continent or area |
| 2 | 2025-11-06 14:43 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,278 | highway=road only works for linear features, not individual nodes. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269157 | |
| 3 | 2025-11-07 11:45 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174269141 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:16 | 1 | 2025-11-06 06:06 | ManuelB701 ♦241 | Same issues as with #174269137: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174269137 --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174269141 |
| 2 | 2025-11-06 14:24 | dmjab13 ♦62 | please keep edits to one continent or area | |
| 3 | 2025-11-07 11:45 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174269137 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:15 | 1 | 2025-11-06 06:05 | ManuelB701 ♦241 | 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 | 2025-11-06 07:54 | ika-chan! ♦311 | Undone in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174274003. Please consult the community at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ first. | |
| 3 | 2025-11-06 15:13 | silversurfer83 ♦3,732 | 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 | 2025-11-07 11:45 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | 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 | 1 | 2025-11-06 14:24 | dmjab13 ♦62 | please keep edits to one continent or area |
| 2 | 2025-11-07 09:55 | habi ♦1,981 | 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 | 2025-11-07 10:03 | habi ♦1,981 | For https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1167110204 any highway-tag seems unnecessary | |
| 4 | 2025-11-07 10:05 | habi ♦1,981 | Same for https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136967370 | |
| 5 | 2025-11-07 10:07 | habi ♦1,981 | > Same for osm.org/changeset/136967370Sorry, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1616113575/ | |
| 6 | 2025-11-07 10:12 | habi ♦1,981 | 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 | 2025-11-07 10:18 | habi ♦1,981 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2793461769 is also tagged unnecessarily, if you'd have looked at the history of the node. | |
| 8 | 2025-11-07 11:44 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 174268966 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:04 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:44 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268963 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 05:04 | 1 | 2025-11-07 11:44 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 |
| 174268528 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-06 04:35 | 1 | 2025-11-06 22:09 | fortera_au ♦1,441 | 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 | 2025-11-07 04:27 | 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 | 2025-11-07 04:38 | fortera_au ♦1,441 | 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 | 2025-11-07 11:44 | Taya_S ♦1,613 | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174330042 | |
| 173909264 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-29 03:39 | 1 | 2025-11-02 19:18 | *Martin* ♦651 | 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 | 2025-11-02 22:32 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-30 19:06 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-28 22:55 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,141 | Access restrictions should not be tagged with turn restrictions --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168993087 |
| 2 | 2025-10-29 01:43 | 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 | 2025-10-30 04:17 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,141 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-29 06:57 | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦221 | 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 | 2025-10-29 14:35 | 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 | 2025-10-29 15:18 | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦221 | 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 | 2025-10-29 15:54 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-21 19:28 | Baconcrisp ♦139 | 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 | 2025-10-22 01:30 | 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 | 2025-10-22 14:25 | Baconcrisp ♦139 | 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 | 2025-10-22 19:04 | 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 | 2025-10-23 14:06 | Baconcrisp ♦139 | 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 | 2025-10-23 16:59 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-06 22:10 | Oregonian3 ♦49 | 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 | 2025-10-06 22:51 | 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 | 2025-10-07 01:41 | Oregonian3 ♦49 | *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 | 2025-10-07 14:21 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay then, thanks for the information! (And for correcting me on my typos 😅) | |
| 5 | 2025-10-22 03:22 | dknelson9876 ♦62 | 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 | 2025-10-22 18:26 | 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 | 2025-10-22 19:22 | Oregonian3 ♦49 | 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 | 2025-10-23 01:17 | dknelson9876 ♦62 | 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 | 2025-10-23 04:18 | 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 | 1 | 2025-08-16 18:04 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | 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 | 2025-08-16 21:04 | Flap Slimy Outward | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Motorway_classifications | |
| 3 | 2025-10-21 03:55 | ZLima12 ♦286 | 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 | 2025-10-21 13:11 | 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 | 2025-10-21 18:24 | ZLima12 ♦286 | 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 | 2025-10-22 01:26 | Flap Slimy Outward | ...which is why I tagged it as highway:motorway=primary... | |
| 7 | 2025-10-22 03:00 | ZLima12 ♦286 | 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 | 2025-10-23 00:29 | Flap Slimy Outward | Hm, how about highway=primary + motorway=yes? | |
| 9 | 2025-10-23 00:46 | ZLima12 ♦286 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-21 19:27 | Baconcrisp ♦139 | 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 | 2025-10-22 01:28 | 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 | 2025-10-22 14:35 | Baconcrisp ♦139 | 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 | 2025-10-22 19:17 | 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 | 2025-10-22 20:42 | 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 | 2025-10-22 21:41 | Flap Slimy Outward | Done | |
| 172227567 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-21 02:05 | 1 | 2025-10-22 03:37 | dknelson9876 ♦62 | 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 | 2025-10-22 18:29 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-22 00:26 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,278 | Does the ref actually continue past the last interchange? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173560566 |
| 2 | 2025-10-22 01:31 | 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 | 2025-10-22 02:01 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,278 | 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 | 2025-10-22 02:02 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,278 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-21 17:58 | Oregonian3 ♦49 | 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 | 2025-10-22 01:24 | 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 | 2025-10-22 01:55 | Oregonian3 ♦49 | 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 | 1 | 2025-07-18 18:01 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello. I think this changeset and a couple others around this area overcomplicate/confuse some road classification criteria. Usually, it is fine for motorways to meet pedestrian crossings when they terminate at an at-grade intersection, especially when that intersection is a major one that indicates... |
| 2 | 2025-07-18 21:12 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay... Well, what should be done about the dangling spur? Should this portion of US 93 Business even be considered a motorway at all? IMO, the only thing it has going for itself being a motorway is that it has two grade-separated interchanges. There are no "Freeway entrance" or "Free... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-18 23:39 | Joseph R P ♦384 | If the spur you're referring to is 93 Business—motorway spurs are perfectly fine as it's a physical construction-based classification rather than an importance-based one. There are many examples of this throughout the country, like I 8 in San Diego, Northern Parkway in Phoenix, Earha... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-19 00:29 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright then, I guess I'll restore their old classifications. The only thing I now have against that decision is this: I read somewhere (I think on the wiki) that motorways should not share nodes with other non-motorway (link)s, as that would generate an error. I figured that they should also s... | |
| 5 | 2025-10-21 04:07 | ZLima12 ♦286 | 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 | 2025-10-21 04:08 | ZLima12 ♦286 | If we want to show that it is controlled access, we can use access_control=full | |
| 7 | 2025-10-21 17:01 | 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 | 2025-10-21 18:27 | ZLima12 ♦286 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-19 18:02 | snoozingnewt ♦86 | This restored the highway issues. |
| 2 | 2025-10-19 22:02 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-19 18:08 | Flap Slimy Outward | Reverted changesets 173472314, 173479852, 173501716, 173502305, 173502568, 173503941, and 173504156 |
| 172538993 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-27 18:19 | 1 | 2025-10-19 17:58 | Flap Slimy Outward | Still broke roadshttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173504156 |
| 172815918 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-04 04:50 | 1 | 2025-10-19 17:41 | Sharko_J ♦98 | ??? |
| 173472314 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-19 01:22 | 1 | 2025-10-19 08:41 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,141 | This changeset moved a lot of roads incorrectly.Reverted. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173472314 |
| 2 | 2025-10-19 08:43 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,141 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173479852 | |
| 3 | 2025-10-19 08:59 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,141 | 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 | 2025-10-19 15:29 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-17 07:53 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | Hello! It is not allowed to copy data from Google maps! |
| 2 | 2025-10-17 17:00 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-12 19:04 | SomeoneElse ♦13,585 | 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 | 2025-10-13 07:02 | 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 | 2025-10-15 22:03 | SomeoneElse ♦13,585 | The bus bay isn't all the way up the street though? Where did you see the bus bay? | |
| 4 | 2025-10-16 03:22 | 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 | 1 | 2025-10-11 23:24 | SomeoneElse ♦13,585 | 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 | 2025-10-11 23:26 | SomeoneElse ♦13,585 | 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 | 2025-10-12 17:28 | 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 | 2025-10-12 17:53 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,932 | English is actually more popular. If you count solely native speakers maybe your claim is more true | |
| 5 | 2025-10-13 07:00 | 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 | 2025-10-13 08:58 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,932 | > 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 | 2025-10-13 09:27 | ManuelB701 ♦241 | Great! Now count the amount of ESL speakers and compare THESE to people who know Russian (first AND secondary lang) in Europe. | |
| 8 | 2025-10-13 15:33 | 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 | 2025-10-14 08:03 | ☆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 | 2025-10-14 14:45 | 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 | 2025-10-14 17:20 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,932 | > 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 | 2025-10-14 17:29 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,932 | > 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... | |
| 170807581 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-22 03:18 | 1 | 2025-09-05 23:50 | happilymappingrway ♦9 | 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 | 2025-09-09 15:01 | 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 | 2025-09-17 01:00 | 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 | 2025-09-17 02:18 | 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 | 2025-09-17 04:10 | 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 | 2025-10-09 00:57 | 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 | 2025-10-09 06:40 | Flap Slimy Outward | I've already stated my concerns and objections to their removal; please read above to find them. Thanks. | |
| 172982620 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-08 02:09 | 1 | 2025-10-08 07:23 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | 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 | 2025-10-08 15:44 | Flap Slimy Outward | Those are TIGER tags. To be honest, I don't know what those specific ones mean. | |
| 172817380 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-04 06:27 | 1 | 2025-10-04 20:21 | EzyPup ♦8 | Fair |
| 172766363 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-02 21:18 | 1 | 2025-10-03 07:13 | silversurfer83 ♦3,732 | Hi there :)not sure the relation type should be "boundary".cheers --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172766363 |
| 2 | 2025-10-03 17:51 | ElliottPlack ♦933 | 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 | 2025-10-03 17:54 | EP_Repair ♦563 | reverted via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172803828 | |
| 172729831 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-02 02:26 | 1 | 2025-10-02 06:19 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | Hello! Please check the oneway https://www.osm.org/way/1434764822. It appears to be an impassable section. |
| 2 | 2025-10-02 06:22 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | Hello (again)! Please check also the restriction relation https://www.osm.org/relation/10993475. She miss the role from | |
| 3 | 2025-10-02 14:16 | 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 | 1 | 2025-09-28 10:47 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/relation/19655354. What is the mean of the tag GEOIDFQ = 5001800US3202? |
| 2 | 2025-09-28 17:01 | Flap Slimy Outward | Honestly, I'm not sure. That tag came from TIGER data that came with the GEOJSON file I downloaded. | |
| 3 | 2025-09-28 17:11 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | 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 | 2025-09-29 02:26 | 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 | 2025-09-29 15:51 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | 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 | 2025-09-29 21:39 | 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 | 1 | 2025-09-24 17:35 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-09-24 21:42 | 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 | 1 | 2025-09-24 01:39 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-09-24 01:57 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change them back. | |
| 172274629 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-22 05:23 | 1 | 2025-09-22 05:23 | Flap Slimy Outward | Source: https://youtu.be/4FDTP_nblE8?t=132 |
| 172227384 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-21 01:46 | 1 | 2025-09-21 02:51 | iandees ♦760 | 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 | 2025-09-21 06:35 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, sure thing! | |
| 171329176 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-01 18:29 | 1 | 2025-09-10 01:05 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-09-10 02:30 | 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 | 2025-09-11 01:23 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-09-14 17:44 | 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 | 1 | 2025-08-28 22:53 | Flap Slimy Outward | Did I say "Way" Boulevard? I meant Ryan Boulevard 🤦♂️ |
| 170858581 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-23 03:39 | 1 | 2025-08-23 13:52 | NLBRT ♦20 | 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 | 2025-08-23 14:38 | SomeoneElse ♦13,585 | 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 | 2025-08-23 16:22 | 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 | 2025-08-23 16:45 | NLBRT ♦20 | 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 | 1 | 2025-08-16 07:24 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | Hello! Please notice the difference between a name of a street and addr:street (part of the adresse). |
| 2 | 2025-08-16 16:33 | 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 | 1 | 2025-08-13 14:58 | aweech ♦373 | 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 | 2025-08-14 01:01 | 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 | 2025-08-04 11:49 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,932 | 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 | 2025-08-04 15:55 | Flap Slimy Outward | I have fixed those tags now, thanks for reminding me 👍 | |
| 169798308 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-01 05:05 | 1 | 2025-08-01 07:11 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | 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 | 2025-08-01 15:55 | Flap Slimy Outward | osm.org/relation/13834231, https://www.osm.org/relation/15031205, https://www.osm.org/relation/15031207. Fixed typos | |
| 3 | 2025-08-01 16:01 | Flap Slimy Outward | Done ✅ | |
| 169086776 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 02:51 | 1 | 2025-07-24 14:45 | btwhite92 ♦102 | 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 | 2025-07-26 21:01 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-07-26 22:57 | btwhite92 ♦102 | 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 | 2025-07-27 02:56 | 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 | 2025-07-27 07:08 | btwhite92 ♦102 | 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 | 2025-07-27 18:39 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-07-27 20:06 | btwhite92 ♦102 | 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 | 2025-07-27 20:46 | Joseph R P ♦384 | "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 | 2025-07-28 14:11 | 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 | 2025-07-28 22:35 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 1 | 2025-07-27 18:45 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-07-28 13:59 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it back. | |
| 169320469 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-23 02:54 | 1 | 2025-07-27 03:24 | Necessarycoot72 ♦68 | Hi, it seems that you might have messed up the Vegas valley relation (relation 18991913) it is currently is an unclosed relation |
| 2 | 2025-07-27 06:51 | 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 | 1 | 2025-07-22 01:59 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Thank you for fixing the Las Vegas city boundaries! These had been very incorrect for a long time until now. |
| 2 | 2025-07-22 05:11 | Flap Slimy Outward | You're welcome! Which part(s) of the old border were inaccurate? | |
| 3 | 2025-07-22 20:33 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-07-23 03:21 | 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 | 2025-07-23 20:00 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-07-23 22:25 | 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 | 2025-07-24 17:17 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-07-24 18:11 | 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... | |
| 169266279 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-21 22:14 | 1 | 2025-07-22 01:56 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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 | 2025-07-22 05:13 | 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 | 2025-07-22 20:01 | Joseph R P ♦384 | 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... | |
| 169118683 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 16:39 | 1 | 2025-07-21 00:03 | idkwhatname2use ♦8 | 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 | 2025-07-21 06:59 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks! | |
| 169119317 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 16:55 | 1 | 2025-07-21 00:01 | idkwhatname2use ♦8 | 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 | 2025-07-21 06:58 | 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 | 1 | 2025-07-21 03:20 | 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 | 1 | 2025-07-18 18:33 | Joseph R P ♦384 | While US 50 being trunk is a little more justifiable, granted that its much busier these days than its reign as the "Loneliest Road in America", and links some regionally significant places like Fallon, Ely, and Delta, UT (with even more major highways and cities located west/east of this ... |
| 2 | 2025-07-19 04:44 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change them back. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-19 04:48 | Flap Slimy Outward | Remind me: Which parts of US 6 should remain trunk, and which ones should be reverted to primary again? | |
| 4 | 2025-07-19 15:05 | Joseph R P ♦384 | US 6 should most likely remain primary in Nevada for its lower connectivity and usage by traffic, except for the section between 318 and Ely, and the segments concurrent with US 95 west of Tonopah and 50/93 east of Ely. I'd also say the same for the US 93 section upgraded to trunk between C... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-19 18:56 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will downgrade them accordingly. Thanks once again! | |
| 168462036 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-03 21:42 | 1 | 2025-07-05 07:40 | btwhite92 ♦102 | Hi there,This stretch of Pyramid Hwy is significantly more important than nearby 'secondary' roads and does not belong in the same "bin". It is one of the most heavily trafficked surface arteries in the metropolitan area and is slated for an expressway upgrade soon. I understan... |
| 2 | 2025-07-05 13:05 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go change it back. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-05 13:17 | Joseph R P ♦384 | I would say that this is one of the rare exceptions in which a primary route can terminate with no other connections to a primary road or another highway of a higher classification, due to geographical restrictions. Traffic traveling between Reno/Sparks and Spanish Spanish Springs is funneled into P... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-05 18:18 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. I've only been to Reno once, so I'm not as familiar with its road network as I am with Las Vegas's xD.Speaking of Lake Mead Parkway and Boulevard, I did connect their primary classifications because, as you mentioned earlier, it's one of the only roads that can access Lak... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-05 18:35 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Lake Las Vegas Pkwy is the main road into the community, and as a secondary road, it would be the last major road that Lake Mead Pkwy intersects before it reaches the gate into the Lake Mead NRA. An argument for it to be extended to the gate could be made, like how the US Routes do before entering Y... | |
| 6 | 2025-07-19 05:08 | Flap Slimy Outward | Sorry I didn't see this earlier (why does Gmail mark some of these replies as "Promotional"?). I went ahead and changed all the roads I edited back to secondary. Since you upgraded Hollywood Boulevard anyway, I extended Charleston's primary designation to Hollywood Boulevard sinc... | |
| 7 | 2025-07-19 15:23 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Here's the project: https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/news/news-detail-t28-r1033The project has started, but the bridge isn't under construction yet. Currently, they're working on the first phase, which is mostly just improvements along Wiesner Way, including realigning it towards the... | |
| 8 | 2025-07-19 17:12 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll go check it out. Thanks! | |
| 169091788 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-18 06:42 | 1 | 2025-07-18 18:04 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Thank you for this road class change! This is one I have been planning to make myself for your exact reasons but never got around to doing. |
| 2 | 2025-07-18 21:18 | Flap Slimy Outward | You're welcome! I've been hesitating for a bit since its traffic volumes are a little low compared to other primary routes. But, like you mentioned on 5th Street and Lake Mead Blvd, a newly-built neighborhood won't receive much traffic anyway, and a road with relatively few AADT can s... | |
| 168575367 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-06 19:11 | 1 | 2025-07-12 16:05 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, what was the reasoning for deleting and re-mapping place nodes, such as the Goodsprings node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12983464131)? Every object in OSM has edit history stored in it. Adding '/history' to the end of a way, node, or relation ID will show every edit that any... |
| 2 | 2025-07-12 18:16 | Flap Slimy Outward | I don't recall deleting any place nodes? The Goodsprings node still exists. Sometimes, there were places nodes and boundary ways that weren't connected via a relation, so I connected them. Other times, a node existed without a boundary (like Nelson), so I created the boundary way. Other ti... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-13 17:51 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Bit of a false alarm. I apologize for jumping to conclusions here—I put two and two together since you were the last one to edit the relation and I definitely recalled there being a node at some point prior to that, and you had additionally re-created the node, which lacked the original GNIS i... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-13 18:46 | Flap Slimy Outward | It's alright! I went ahead and re-added it to the boundary relation. | |
| 168624284 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-07 21:28 | 1 | 2025-07-09 15:23 | SD Mapman ♦48 | Why were the name tags removed? They are part of the address for the road and signed as such. |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 16:56 | Flap Slimy Outward | Because "County Road x" (where x is a number) is a highway designation, not an actual name. Sometimes, the county routes have an actual name tagged in their "alt_name," which I used as their actual name. | |
| 168666744 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-08 20:14 | 1 | 2025-07-09 16:00 | SD Mapman ♦48 | This made duplicates in Weld County of Morgan County routes... automation might not be the best way forward here |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 16:06 | SD Mapman ♦48 | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mountain-west-automated-road-route-road-name-changes/132498Please join! | |
| 168466685 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-04 02:34 | 1 | 2025-07-09 01:33 | ZeLonewolf ♦575 | Are you sure about County Road 25 1/2 in Weld Co, CO?https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19320417I can't find any evidence of this existing. There is a nearby county ROAD with this number on a different alignment. |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 02:45 | Flap Slimy Outward | I didn't reroute any of the county roads, at least I don't think I did. I found it like this when I started editing the area. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-09 09:58 | ZeLonewolf ♦575 | You created version 1 of that relation... | |
| 168670575 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-08 22:41 | 1 | 2025-07-09 00:43 | Joseph R P ♦384 | For clarification, a freeway connection isn't required for a road to be primary—just criteria to consider—especially because Sahara Ave directly connects to many other important roadways along its route. D.I. Road and 5th Street for example pass right over I 15 with no direct interc... |
| 168627910 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-08 01:38 | 1 | 2025-07-08 16:40 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, while on paper it makes to have a primary route connect to I 15 from the junction south of Moapa Valley, the Valley of Fire Highway is also a park road with an entry fee used only by parkgoers for most of it route, and is not used by through traffic heading between the town and the Interstate... |
| 2 | 2025-07-08 16:44 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I'll revert this, too. | |
| 168576603 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-06 19:52 | 1 | 2025-07-06 20:20 | AndreaDp271 ♦131 | congratulations for making such a big changeset area, you took half the world. Please save your changes more frequently so as not to ruin the spirit of osm --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168576603 |
| 2 | 2025-07-06 21:03 | bxl-forever ♦2,673 | ⚠️ It looks like this changeset re-used several existing relations all over the world to transform them into relations for roads in Colorado.Take this one, which was a multipolygon in London (UK) up to version #5: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/332/historyOr this one was a river ... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-06 21:07 | AndreaDp271 ♦131 | Very strange, I hope it is not necessary to contact the Data Working Group | |
| 4 | 2025-07-06 21:46 | limes11 ♦974 | Not sure how this happened, but he used relations with increasing id's 1, 2, 3 etc. I mean...how often do you touch the first relation ever created :)Might be a wrong-sign error as the api expects temporary negative id's for new objects.Anyways this needs a full revert. | |
| 5 | 2025-07-06 21:58 | bxl-forever ♦2,673 | I reverted the changeset here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168579807All the relations elsewhere in the world were restored to their previous state.@Flap Slimy Outward: your work to create road relations in your area was preserved too, in most cases through new relations.The c... | |
| 6 | 2025-07-07 02:22 | Flap Slimy Outward | I apologize severely. I used Overpass Turbo and JOSM to edit them. I used a Python script to find all highways in a bounding box (in this case, Weld County) to create new road route relations. As I only had data from that box, I had no idea that I was adding these routes to different relations, so I... | |
| 7 | 2025-07-07 02:25 | Flap Slimy Outward | @limes11 It was a wrong sign error, as I completely forgot that new IDs should be saved with negative numbers. | |
| 8 | 2025-07-08 01:14 | Lumikeiju ♦117 | Thank you for providing the details on what caused the issue! :) We all make mistakes, and that's okay.Happy mapping! | |
| 168547453 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-06 06:26 | 1 | 2025-07-07 17:28 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, Northshore Road should not be a primary road. Some years ago, I upgraded it to primary for the sake of connectivity, but more recently downgraded it back to secondary as it does not serve as a primary road in the scheme of travel. It is a major roadway in a sense, being the main highway in an... |
| 2 | 2025-07-07 18:52 | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay then. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-07 19:10 | Flap Slimy Outward | In that case, why does the primary designation end at Eastgate Road in particular? | |
| 168583643 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-07-07 02:18 | 1 | 2025-07-07 15:31 | InsertUser ♦462 | Where was this mechanical edit discussed? |
| 2 | 2025-07-07 15:59 | iandees ♦760 | (This was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168584060) | |
| 167849751 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-20 01:51 | 1 | 2025-07-04 06:45 | Minh Nguyen ♦592 | Hi, your addition of a ref tag to the Peña Boulevard route relation is apparently causing some renderers to think this route is numbered “Peña” despite already belonging to a route network all its own. You also cited an image on Wikimedia Commons that might be misleading pe... |
| 2 | 2025-07-04 16:34 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will fix these. | |
| 168252632 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-29 07:04 | 1 | 2025-07-02 00:04 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello—it looks like a few things were broken or made more complicated in the changeset:- The sand polygon surrounding northwestern Vegas (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19087109) appears to have been broken, as it no longer renders. This could be an issue as simple as an 'inne... |
| 2 | 2025-07-02 02:03 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will fix them once I regain access to JOSM. If an entity's boundaries (say, a suburb) is defined with bi-directional roads (such as The Lakes), would it then be appropriate to tag the road as an outer part of the relation? Because the alternative—draw a new way such that it perfec... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-02 21:41 | Joseph R P ♦384 | I think it should be fine to use a bi-directional roadway (i.e. the undivided sections of roads) as a way in a boundary relation, but in a case where the roadway splits into two one-way lines (i.e. divided by a median), I'd roughly trace a new boundary in the middle—not the median exactly... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-03 01:11 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, I will keep this in mind next time. Thank you! | |
| 168288083 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-30 01:25 | 1 | 2025-06-30 21:08 | Joseph R P ♦384 | While it is fully grade-separated, it's very short, and technically not part of the real motorway here, which would be the Airport Connector—this part of Paradise Road branches off the terminus of the Airport Connector at the series of terminal access flyovers before the tunnel. Another r... |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 22:50 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I'll go ahead and change it back to a primary road. Thanks for the information! | |
| 168168687 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-27 06:33 | 1 | 2025-06-28 15:20 | Joseph R P ♦384 | It might be better to keep 5th Street primary here despite its relatively low AADT (when compared to east-wets routes—it still is the highest traffic north-south route through here), it actually is a very high-connectivity thoroughfare on the basis that it is the most direct north-south route ... |
| 2 | 2025-06-28 15:30 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Who even comes up with these rules anyway? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-28 16:48 | Joseph R P ♦384 | In short—the community and your own personal judgement. The rules are really just vague guidelines that are followed by local OSM communities or individuals who try to put two-and-two together based off how everyone else does it. For US road classification specifically, these are based upo... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-28 23:04 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alrighty, that's very informativea, and I appreciate it. But, if I recall correctly (edits to Washington Avenue, Bonanza Road, and Casino Center Boulevard), you told me that state highways don't actually tell people about the road's importance in the network. I could make a list of Ne... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-28 23:42 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Sorry, I should specified which kinds of designations I speak of, like NHS (National Highway System) designations. These for example are the highways that the FHWA has deemed the most important to the country logistically, usually those that links major industrial and/or transport hubs. Sometimes, h... | |
| 6 | 2025-06-29 17:28 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me again! | |
| 167967504 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-22 16:51 | 1 | 2025-06-24 19:54 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Secondary would probably be the best classification for this section, especially since this forms a straight shot connection between Charleston, Town Center, and the Beltway when it transitions to Far Hills Avenue. It does have an AADT of 10k which is low compared to most other secondary roads in th... |
| 2 | 2025-06-24 20:22 | Flap Slimy Outward | Oh, okay then. In that case, what would happen to Alta? It sees no freeway connection whatsoever despite its connectivity to... a newly-built neighborhood? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-24 20:53 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Alta seems good as-is as well. While a freeway connection is a plus for justifying upgrading a road from tertiary to secondary, it's not necessarily required for secondary classification. Alta in its own merits should qualify for being a secondary road in that it provides a single straight shot... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-25 06:26 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I see what you're saying now. I've now restored the secondary classification to Hualapai Way. Once again, thanks for sharing this information with me! | |
| 167635437 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-15 04:20 | 1 | 2025-06-21 15:31 | Joseph R P ♦384 | These sort of roadways would be better classified as links tagged based on which roads they link to rather than as actual roads since they are ramps linking roads rather than actual named roads themselves. |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 16:34 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. Well, they are classified as collector/distributor roads, which would usually be classed as tertiary roads in the US. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-21 18:08 | Joseph R P ♦384 | I think this is the conflation of two different types of roads with different purposes that simply share the same name. The most common use for "collector road" refers to the bulk of the streets tagged as tertiary in the Las Vegas Valley. The other use of "collector road" applica... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-21 21:09 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thank you for informing me! I would have never known the difference between those two types of collector/distributor roads, especially when online queries don't help at all. How could I learn such things in the future?P.S., when I search for the reference code of such a road (i.e., IR15... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-21 21:49 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Wikipedia does have an article on collector roads—when referring to the street type (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collector_road) and an article about the local/express highway configuration, which does cover collector/distributor lanes within it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local%E2%80%93e... | |
| 6 | 2025-06-22 16:27 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me! I'll check them out. | |
| 167070746 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-01 23:52 | 1 | 2025-06-11 01:02 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, expressways should not be exclusively tagged as trunk, especially short sections such as these. The expressway characteristics of this road can be indicated with the expressway=yes tag. |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 02:27 | Flap Slimy Outward | I felt like a transition between motorway, trunk, and primary would make more sense than motorway directly to primary. I would assume these expressway stubs from the end of freeways would receive more traffic than a normal primary road. Is there a specific reason why it would be better to go from mo... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-11 13:53 | Joseph R P ♦384 | My reasoning for going from motorway to primary rather than going through a sort of classification gradient would be that motorway classification is based off physical characteristics while tertiary, secondary, primary, and trunk are based off importance as a road. This means that a motorway could t... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-11 17:01 | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting. I have read somewhere on the wiki that giving motorways their own classification is technically an inconsistency, as expressways are also classified by their physical characteristics. Not to mention that expressways don't appear at all in most renderers (except AmericanaMap.org). O... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-11 19:23 | Joseph R P ♦384 | I would believe that the reason expressways aren't tagged and rendered the same way as motorways would be that it's very contentious among the community what an "expressway" is, granted that they can vary between a divided highway like US 95 north of Las Vegas/south of Boulder Ci... | |
| 6 | 2025-06-11 21:53 | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting discussion. I learned something new today! | |
| 7 | 2025-06-11 22:03 | Flap Slimy Outward | One more thing: Taking everything you said into account, why is Summerlin Parkway (West of the freeway segment) a trunk road? That's definitely something I did not do; plus, it's exactly like Lake Mead Parkway and Paradise Road: expressways tagged as trunk roads because they're the en... | |
| 8 | 2025-06-12 21:14 | Joseph R P ♦384 | That tagging scheme would have to do more with connectivity than end-of-freeway expressway tagging. Typically trunk has been used to classify those little sections of motorways through signalized interchanges to connect the ramps on the non-freeway side with the freeway (in this case, the southbound... | |
| 9 | 2025-06-13 01:10 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, thanks for informing me! | |
| 10 | 2025-06-17 17:09 | Flap Slimy Outward | Wait a second. If the 215 were to be tagged as trunk due to its importance rather than its physical characteristics, wouldn't that make Lead Mead Parkway between the 215 and Eastgate Road a trunk road as well? I'm confused; am I overthinking this? | |
| 11 | 2025-06-17 20:44 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Technically not since it's only a stub, and trunk classification here would imply that Eastgate Road is a significant destination. Current motorway to primary configuration here should be fine as-is. | |
| 12 | 2025-06-17 21:29 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks! | |
| 167380075 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-09 06:24 | 1 | 2025-06-11 15:06 | Joseph R P ♦384 | I would say that trunk classification is not the best tag for roads like these despite their widths and traffic volumes, as they are still only local roads. In an urban scenario like this, trunk classification should be applied only to major non-freeway highways that serve as major commuter routes t... |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 17:08 | Flap Slimy Outward | Interesting. I did not consider the difference between local traffic and other traffic when upgrading these roads to trunk roads. I now wonder if Rainbow Boulevard would be classified as a trunk road or primary road. On the one hand, locals tend to use it more than other primary/secondary roads arou... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-11 20:29 | Joseph R P ♦384 | I have considered upgrading Rainbow Boulevard to trunk in the past as well for the reasons you stated, but ultimately I would have to believe that primary is the best classification for it. My initial considerations were its high traffic volumes and that it could be used for getting from Route 95 to... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-11 21:59 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright. I'll go ahead and fix these. | |
| 167465719 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-06-10 22:17 | 1 | 2025-06-11 10:37 | user_5359 ♦20,472 | Hello! Please have a look on https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/25R5. What is the mean of the tag yes = no or yes=yes? |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 16:56 | Flap Slimy Outward | I think this might have been a mistake, as I don't remember ever adding those tags. | |
| 167025013 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-31 18:50 | 1 | 2025-05-31 19:51 | Udarian ♦546 | why did you move the position of the city of Miami. |
| 2 | 2025-05-31 20:21 | Flap Slimy Outward | 1. I only moved it 2.90 meters. That's very trivial.2. I put it precisely at its "mathematical origin" (where the north–south and west–east demarcator meet each other). | |
| 166980440 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-30 16:15 | 1 | 2025-05-30 21:17 | InsertUser ♦462 | It also seems to have duplicated the Bermuda Triangle?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11845908616 |
| 2 | 2025-05-31 14:42 | Flap Slimy Outward | I can add the node and boundary to a relation. | |
| 165695297 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-01 21:42 | 1 | 2025-05-29 21:02 | skquinn ♦808 | Hi,The CVS store is both a chemist (drugstore) and a pharmacy. The pharmacy is intentionally mapped as a separate node to allow for different opening_hours as it is not open 24 hours like the drugstore portion. |
| 165396797 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-24 20:09 | 1 | 2025-05-22 18:56 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, service roads and driveways such as the road leading to the Indian Hills Apartments complex should not be tagged as primary links. The highway link tags are for unnamed roadways like exit ramps, slip lanes, or median crossovers. Additionally, the 'destination' value should only be... |
| 166452677 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-19 00:49 | 1 | 2025-05-19 02:14 | Joseph R P ♦384 | What is your reason for re-adding the 'I 11 Future' designation to this corridor? This is not a valid ref key value as the road is not officially designated or signed as such, nor would this be useful for navigation since I 11 does not yet exist here. fut_ref=* serves this purpose. |
| 2 | 2025-05-19 03:02 | Flap Slimy Outward | Because yes, Future I-11 has been signed (at those four signs that I added) and designated by the Arizona DOT. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-19 04:32 | Joseph R P ♦384 | The Future I 11 Corridor signs aren't official highway shields or designations, just signs promoting the upcoming project. Only designations like US 93 and I 40 should be signed. | |
| 166311106 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-15 15:35 | 1 | 2025-05-16 02:26 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, Lake Mead Boulevard west of Rampart most likely does not meet the criteria for primary. It sees considerably lower traffic than roads like Rampart and Cheyenne (less than 10k vs. over 20k on the other two roads) as well as less commercial development and poorer access to other neighborhoods o... |
| 2 | 2025-05-16 05:02 | Flap Slimy Outward | Alright, I'll keep this in mind. I still find it strange how there's no primary road in Summerlin West, though that might be because it's relatively new. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-16 21:27 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Generally, not every development, such as Summerlin West, will be reached by a primary route, especially if it is primarily residential zoning and is located in a corner of the valley, thus introducing geographical circumstances for why a major intra-city arterial road does not pass through, meaning... | |
| 165093021 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-18 01:14 | 1 | 2025-05-16 02:42 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, where did you source these directional prefixes from, particularly 'Southwest Galleria Drive'? |
| 2 | 2025-05-16 05:01 | Flap Slimy Outward | Well, Galleria Drive intersects Boulder Highway, which is the west–east demarcator for this part of Henderson. Once in a residential neighborhood, Galleria Drive curves from being west–east to north–south. Since Henderson tends not to add directional prefixes to street signs, I cou... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-16 20:12 | Allison P ♦1,142 | Galleria Drive is never South or Southwest. It is West all the way to Russell. | |
| 4 | 2025-05-16 21:20 | Joseph R P ♦384 | These prefixes should not be assumed and should be added only if they're signed or officially documented in some other way like in the county GIS. Directional prefixes are not arbitrary and are part of the addresses of properties located along the road. Allison is correct that it is West Galler... | |
| 165777176 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-05-03 21:03 | 1 | 2025-05-04 20:57 | Glassman ♦5,654 | This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.It looks like you dragged to nodes. I have fixed them. Also, when indivi... |
| 165478521 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-26 18:32 | 1 | 2025-04-26 19:43 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Please do not use Google content as a source. osm.wiki/Google |
| 165306179 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-22 22:13 | 1 | 2025-04-24 01:17 | Joseph R P ♦384 | For future reference, roads should not be classified solely based on their width, especially if it's a very short segment of a street like this that just so happens to be very wide. This street segment would still serve as a residential road in this case. |
| 2 | 2025-04-25 06:14 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me! | |
| 164958136 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-14 21:23 | 1 | 2025-04-21 15:16 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Please do not change the surface of an under-construction roadway to anything other than its typical surface unless it has officially been permanently changed to that surface. access=no with surface=sand would imply that it is a road with a sand surface that is inaccessible for any reason while high... |
| 165000527 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-15 19:29 | 1 | 2025-04-17 02:24 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello—please do not add city labels for metro areas. The Las Vegas Valley is only a region, not a proper city, and the current Las Vegas city node already represents the core city that the metro area is sprawling off of. |
| 2 | 2025-04-21 04:33 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay. (Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier.) | |
| 165007393 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-16 01:35 | 1 | 2025-04-21 01:39 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Please do not tag roads based on their classification. A state route number is merely a number in the grand scheme of things and only reflects who maintains the road as opposed to its role in the road network. Bonanza Road has less traffic than Washington Avenue and lacks a direct I 15 connection un... |
| 2 | 2025-04-21 04:33 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thanks for informing me. Again, where can I get sources for traffic info? I'll need to check it out before retagging roads again. Thanks once again. | |
| 165170516 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-04-19 20:41 | 1 | 2025-04-21 01:21 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello. 'CC 215' is the official designation for the Beltway, as it is referred to as the 'Clark County 215' rather than 'County Road 215'. Please do not make edits like these for the sake of rendering on third-party programs. |
| 2 | 2025-04-21 04:20 | Flap Slimy Outward | Okay, thank you for informing me. I won't do it again. | |
| 164056728 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-25 01:28 | 1 | 2025-03-25 05:48 | Mxdanger ♦85 | I saw you made multiple edits to add to this relation. For big relations I highly recommend you check out JOSM! It makes relation editing very easy and quick. |
| 2 | 2025-03-25 05:50 | Flap Slimy Outward | I've seen JOSM in the edit menu, but it says I need something external, and I'm not sure what it does. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-26 22:31 | Mxdanger ♦85 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM | |
| 162791594 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-21 18:04 | 1 | 2025-02-21 23:51 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello. Please note that roads are not classified based on length but rather on the basis of connectivity with other roads and places and importance within the road network, and occasionally other factors such as traffic data and physical construction of the roadway. In this case, Smoke Ranch serves ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:49 | Flap Slimy Outward | I might need more help with tertiary roads. For instance, why is Upland Blvd a tertiary road (when it's in a residential area) but Evergreen Ave a residential road? (Yes, it's in a residential area, but it connects two or three neighborhoods. Thus, I would consider it a tertiary road east ... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-23 22:35 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Upland Blvd. is a prime example of a tertiary road in which it is not a high-capacity arterial like Alta but it sees more traffic than a typical residential street. It is wider and and has lane markings, which are often signs that a street serves as a collector road. Compare that to Evergreen Ave, w... | |
| 163465103 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-11 00:51 | 1 | 2025-03-11 05:55 | vricciardulli ♦27 | Hello, I've noticed that you are deleting some relations. For example, you deleted Las Vegas, which is not correct.Can you please not delete well-established relations? Also Henderson (R170116) should not have been deleted. Please revert. |
| 2 | 2025-03-12 17:41 | Joseph R P ♦384 | R170116 still exists, the boundaries have just been swapped with the city label role and the node itself was either moved or deleted, so the city label does not appear on the map. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-12 17:51 | Joseph R P ♦384 | I've reverted this changeset to restore the relation. I would've manually restored the city label like I did here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163537635) but I was unable to find the node in this one.I will say from experience that it is very easy to accidentally break a re... | |
| 4 | 2025-03-13 06:26 | vricciardulli ♦27 | Thank Joseph you for explaining. However, I see that the user's edits are still causing issues (again the Las Vegas relation cannot be found anymore when looking up an address and this is happening also for other places). Unfortunately I still don't understand how to fix user edits, otherw... | |
| 5 | 2025-03-14 01:41 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Looks like DWG might be taking care of it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17388 | |
| 6 | 2025-03-23 20:52 | Flap Slimy Outward | As I said before, I thought it would be better to list cities as areas rather than using points and relations. After I was emailed the consequences of this, I realized that it would make searching for cities harder, so I won't do it again. | |
| 163307254 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-07 01:49 | 1 | 2025-03-10 01:06 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, I had to revert this changeset because it appears some of the edits you made in it broke the Desert National Wildlife Refuge and Tule Springs Fossil Beds relations. I will recommend that it may be better to publish any unrelated edits you make in separate changesets so that smaller innocuous ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:50 | Flap Slimy Outward | Understood, thank you very much. When I was editing around that area, I received a warning that "[this thing] should be a closed area based on its tags." | |
| 162231227 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-07 05:16 | 1 | 2025-02-12 02:22 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, please use the 'ref=*' key for current official designations only. Future designations can be added under the 'fut_ref=*' key. For example: 'fut_ref=I 11' instead of 'ref=Future I 11'. |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:45 | Flap Slimy Outward | Thank you, understood. | |
| 161733544 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-01-25 02:39 | 1 | 2025-01-30 23:06 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, what was your reasoning for upgrading Desert Inn Road to trunk here? Trunk road classification is intended to be used for major highways, like US 95, NV 160, or NV 146, which link major population centers and/or other major highways. The correct classification for DI Road here would be primar... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 20:45 | Flap Slimy Outward | I did that because, between Valley View Blvd. and University Center Dr., Desert Inn Road becomes a "super arterial" and functions basically as an expressway, even though it officially isn't. I interpreted that as a "trunk road" - an "almost expressway." | |
| 163553496 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-03-13 04:13 | 1 | 2025-03-13 06:53 | Fizzie-DWG ♦33,247 | Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17388 |
| 162913318 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-25 01:03 | 1 | 2025-02-25 01:33 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello. Motorway was the correct classification here, since this is a multi-lane highway and not just a ramp or slipway, and per the Clark County OpenWeb, the correct name for this road is 'Airport Connector'. |
| 2 | 2025-02-25 01:42 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Further note, the NV 171 designation officially ends just before the tunnel at Sunset Road, and does not extend along the I 215 ramps. | |
| 162648580 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-18 07:45 | 1 | 2025-02-21 23:57 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, Turning circles would be correct here. These half-turning circles at 90-degree street curves would be called 'knuckles', which can be specified with the 'turning_circle=knuckle' tag. |
| 162799122 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-02-21 23:01 | 1 | 2025-02-21 23:39 | Joseph R P ♦384 | Hello, I have reverted your changeset because 'Future I 11' is not a valid value for the 'ref=*' key, unless it is officially signed and designated.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162799791 |