| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 156078849 by UW Maddie @ 2024-09-02 04:15 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Cookie Guru ♦14 | Hi UW Maddie,I'm looking at this changeset, specifically the intersection of 18th and Jefferson, for example way 9014742201. why does this intersection use Cycle crossing and Cycle and Foot crossing, whereas almost every other intersection in the city just uses Crossing?2. Why does west... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | UW Maddie | 1. I have no idea why and I did not put the cycle tags on them according to the edit history. Some mappers have decided to tag pedestrian crossings that connect wider cycle paths/routes as cycle paths or cycle & foot paths. I don't always know the route details or their reasons, and that is... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Cookie Guru ♦14 | Thank you for the response, explanation, and fixes! | |
| 141544209 by UW Maddie @ 2023-09-21 07:24 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | pwbriggs ♦218 | FYI it sounds like the general consensus is that this scored surface treatment (on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8279999097) doesn't count as tactile paving--see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5132105 etc. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | UW Maddie | Alright I've taken this into account. I was waiting for word of a consensus to change them. At some point I will do a mass replacement in the gigantic area of Seattle that I added these to | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | pwbriggs ♦218 | Sound good, but I don't know how these could be mass-edited: i.e. how do you differentiate between proper tactile paving with tactile_paving=yes and ramps with surface treatment that are tagged (incorrectly, we've now decided) as tactile_paving=yes too? | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | UW Maddie | That is visible in imagery. It is possible to manually de-select objects in JOSM to only apply the tag change to some of the ones that were searched for, so I can de-select any that are genuinely tactile (or not visible aerially too). This will not be done until after the 2025 King County Orthoimage... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | UW Maddie | The last point is about there possibly being survey-verified new construction in the short period between 2025 KCOI captures and its release date. There will be a small number of them I'm sure, but that's more than 0 so I'll need to check manually for any curb edited last by someone e... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | UW Maddie | I intend to, around the same time, use a search for "tactile_paving=no" to find examples where 2025 imagery shows a tactile paved curb tagged as not tactile in order to locate crossings that need updating, though for those it will require geometry edits too | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | pwbriggs ♦218 | Awesome, glad that you have a solid plan :)KC imagery supposedly coming out in february... https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C1FKE1NCA/p1765578997254529Happy mapping! | |
| 175659209 by UW Maddie @ 2025-12-08 10:29 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | UW Maddie | If some of the curbs look like they don't match aerial imagery, that's because I used the latest 2025 mapillary images to verify the newly constructed curbs |
| 175651707 by UW Maddie @ 2025-12-08 07:34 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | UW Maddie | If some of the curbs look like they don't match aerial imagery, that's because I used the latest 2025 mapillary images to verify the newly constructed curbs |
| 155956727 by UW Maddie @ 2024-08-30 06:02 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | UW Maddie | I also made some images for mapillary in parts of the surveyed area where new street level imagery was missing. they seem to still be processing though and haven't been made available as of the changeset submission time though |
| 86690920 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-16 00:21 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | watmildon ♦301 | I was curious what was the idea with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11207531/history I've not seen anything like it. Maybe an experiment that didn't pan out? hmmm |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | UW Maddie | Yes, I was under instruction to make relations out of "complex intersections" at the time. I do not know what these relations were supposed to be for, but they don't seem to need me to add them anymore so I stopped a while ago. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | watmildon ♦301 | Gotcha. No problem. I'll clean 'em up if I get a chance. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | UW Maddie | Before you do that could I ask what they're for? In case there's some software need for them. It was different work from what I do in Seattle | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | watmildon ♦301 | Oh yeah, no problem. No rush on my side. They aren't causing me any issues. Just curiosity.I will await more info. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | UW Maddie | I've confirmed that these intersection relations were a now unused experiment that can be removed. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | watmildon ♦301 | Awesome. Thanks for the quick reply! | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | watmildon ♦301 | I have removed the Seattle area ones in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155487954 | |
| 153014054 by UW Maddie @ 2024-06-22 03:25 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153014054 |
| 153015998 by UW Maddie @ 2024-06-22 05:52 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153015998 |
| 153013359 by UW Maddie @ 2024-06-22 02:15 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | UW Maddie | forgot to add "local knowledge" as a source |
| 140355962 by UW Maddie @ 2023-08-25 07:13 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | pesticides ♦39 | The path between the end of 28th Ave S and the I-90 Trail is paved and open to the public. I reverted the changes to that path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140745936 |
| 127623663 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-16 15:33 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! Please take a look on https://www.osm.org/way/855690602/history. Which surface value is correctsurface = asphaltsurfaces = paved (older entry with typo)? |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | UW Maddie | "surfaces" with an S is a typo, I guess I forgot to delete that after pasting in my surface=asphalt | |
| 81888428 by UW Maddie @ 2020-03-07 02:12 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦9,767 | Why you added also project=opensidewalks tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/778993112/history ? |
| 133134267 by UW Maddie @ 2023-02-28 15:41 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | VigilantPenguin ♦33 | Hi there, did you intentionally delete part of Olive Way (between 9th Ave and Boren Ave)? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | No, that must be a mistake when deleting crossing nodes to improve the crossings. Sorry about that | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | I don't know how to use them but there are apparently tools for restoring deleted objects like potlatch and whodidit. Do you want me learn to fix this myself or are you doing it? | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | VigilantPenguin ♦33 | No worries, mistakes happen! I'll plan on undeleting it, just wanted to double check if there was a reason for it so I didn't trample anything. Thanks! | |
| 126041250 by UW Maddie @ 2022-09-11 09:19 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | wislander ♦30 | Hi 0wu,I think you're being much too generous with what counts as a "footway" in changesets like this. I just walked along Dayton Ave N an hour ago, and some of the sections you've tagged as footway are just a gravel shoulder. The east side, just north of N 85th St, doesn... |
| 126919133 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-03 06:37 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Hello, I noticed that this changes the tactile paving status on some curb ramps. The texture on these ramps are designed as grips for slippery weather conditions, but they're not compliant with ADA recommendations for a detectable warning surface. Does OpenSidewalks consider this type of surfac... |
| 126885375 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-02 09:21 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Hello! This changeset reverts the updated alignment of reconstructed curb ramps and crossings along N 80th St. This is one of the streets that I sent in the list that you asked for.Please check the version history of an element before adjusting it with outdated imagery.Thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | I wasn'y using outdated imagery for this, I saw your message about the construction, this is referencing the streetside imagery which is new enough to include the newly constructed curbs, some of which were actually missing | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | And I know they're all new because they have tactile pads absent from the aerial imagery and match mapillary feeds from 2021 and 2022 | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Hi 0wu, thanks for the reply. I'm referring to the angles of the curb ramps which changed after the construction. For example, this changeset moves some ramps back to the ~45 degree angle shown in the older Bing aerial imagery. However, the construction replaced a few of these with straight ang... | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Oh... Dr. Caspi introduced me to the OpenSidewalks Tasking manager today. I just noticed that the iD instance in this tool doesn't have the newer King County aerial imagery option. You may wish to cross-reference changes made through the tasking manager with KC 2021 imagery available in the... | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | That sounds good, but how do I access this imagery within the editor? Also I was using the 2021 streetside imagery for 80th, not the aerial imagery, for example the southwest corner of Densmore and 80th had an extra wide single curb added rather than 2, so now I have this question: should that type ... | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | To access the imagery in the editor on openstreetmap.org, open the "Background Settings" panel on the right, and choose the "King County Orthoimagery (2021)" option. The imagery offset settings are at the bottom of the panel.And good question about those newer "elbow mac... | |
| 8 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | To improve the representation of those wide curbs when using two nodes, we could connect both nodes with a way tagged with:barrier=kerbkerb=*tactile_paving=yesThis way they're connected by a single feature for anyone who happens to want that data. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Ah, I figured out how to get the KC 2021 imagery into the tasking manager:1. Open the background settings panel2. Choose the "Custom" option3. Paste this URL: https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/arcgis/rest/services/BaseMaps/KingCo_Aerial_2021/MapServer/WMTS/tile/1.0.0/BaseMaps_KingCo_A... | |
| 10 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | I got it to work. And yes I like this idea of mapping the wide curbs as 2 rather than 1 for this purpose so I'll start doing that, but I'm not sure if the extra way is necessary | |
| 126889323 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-02 11:25 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Hello! This changeset reverts the updated alignment of reconstructed curbs/bulbs on Green Lake Dr N. I've tried to align sidewalks very carefully south of 85th St to account for all of the new construction. |
| 125605462 by UW Maddie @ 2022-08-31 10:30 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Hello again! This changeset removes a new curb ramp and reverts updated crossing alignments. The city rebuilt most of the crossings along Lake City Way. I've been working on correcting the alignment and details in these areas. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | (At the intersection of Lake City Way and Northgate Way, that is). | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | By the way, why do you split sidewalks ways into multiple redundant segments? I've been merging these together when I see them, but I can stop doing that if there's a good reason to keep the extra ways. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | (Other mappers have been merging these back together as well). | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | I split the lines where they are intersected by another walkable path. I was instructed to do this for some reason to do with routing in other software but it's been 3 years so I don't remember the reason, but I'm now awaiting a refresh on that so I'll get back to you on that lat... | |
| 83121689 by UW Maddie @ 2020-04-06 05:21 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | goldfndr ♦65 | At least ways 788344891 and 788344901 appear (at ground level) to be shoulders, not footways. Is there some indication I'm not seeing that would make them footways instead of shoulders? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | How do we tag shoulders? We're tagging these as footways to specify a walkable path separated from the road for opensidewalks. I don't see any documentation about how to tag shoulders for this purpose. The only thing the wiki calls "shoulders" is something for cars to pull aside ... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | The reason why I didn't label them as sidewalks is because these paths are not separated from the road in any way like a proper sidewalk, making them not technically sidewalks but rather a type of foot path without a specific tag designated for them. I cannot use the existing shoulder tag becau... | |
| 125040034 by UW Maddie @ 2022-08-18 01:54 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | Hello! Seattle has not implemented request buttons and sound signals at every signalized crossing. No need to add these tags unless you're sure. I've fixed a few of these, but it's easier to keep track of what needs to be resurveyed when the tags are not already present.In a simil... |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | But those were not sound signal tags, they're foot signals tags I was told to input for when visual pedestrian signals are present. If I add that or add button operated tags, it's always after verifying that the signals and buttons exist with street level imagery, so I am sure about those.... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | UW Maddie | Wait a minute, I see what you mean. Yeah it appears that there are some sound tags still from here from last year. I don't add those anymore, but some still remain, and should be removed if they're inaccurate. But it looks like some of my "traffic_signals:foot=yes" tags are being... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Cy R ♦21 | I apologize--I didn't notice that you stopped using the traffic_signals:sound tag. I must have clicked on an older element while reviewing this changeset (which looks good to me). Sorry for the confusion!I removed some traffic_signals:foot tags when converting a few crossings to the crossin... | |
| 122438555 by UW Maddie @ 2022-06-15 23:44 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | bohemio ♦1 | Testing messaging with @[0wu] by adding a comment in the messaging function within the OSMCha.org changeset 122438555. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122438555 |
| 116819994 by UW Maddie @ 2022-01-31 11:55 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | wislander ♦30 | Hi 0wu,I was biking down Sand Point Way today, and the sidewalks you added along that street mostly don't seem to exist. Rather, I just saw a regular shoulder on each side, which can be used for car parking and isn't dedicated to pedestrians. --- ... |
| 97661088 by UW Maddie @ 2021-01-18 03:35 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | pnorman ♦319 | You've added a bunch of project=opensidewalks tags. In OSM we don't indicate data like that on objects. If needed someone can look at the history and see who added it and their changeset tags. I've fixed this in the local area in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102625007 |
| 90139800 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-30 09:24 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | additional source: Bing bird's eye view. can be accessed via right click on Bing maps aerial imagery |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | seattlefyi ♦380 | Hi, according to the Bing license (and further inquiries in the forums as of 2018) using Bing bird's eye view is not permitted. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf) My understanding is that it is only really safe to use the imagery provided in our standard tools; any ... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | What should I do about this aside from not using that as a source any longer | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | seattlefyi ♦380 | That is a good first step, I've sent an email separately with suggestions. Thanks! | |
| 5 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | I can individually remove the objects that were created with that as a reference, fortunately they make up a very small amount of the things I added, generally done when a tall building is misshapen or is blocking adjacent features due to being fragmented in the standard aerial imagery, though 2 day... | |
| 6 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | all of them have been deleted | |
| 7 | ~ 5 years ago | seattlefyi ♦380 | Thanks so much for following up with the changes! | |
| 90038018 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-27 16:48 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | all bing bird's eye sourced objects have been deleted |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | bing bird's eye is a banned source here due to not having the license to use it as a source, so i have deleted everything that used it | |
| 89641160 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-19 14:47 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | use of bing bird's eye is not allowed so all features that are based on its imagery are deleted |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | bird's eye is not allowed here because of not having the proper licensing, so i deleted the features that used it to follow rules | |
| 87326586 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-30 06:02 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | every feature added from bing bird's eye imagery are completely deleted |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | the reason i deleted them was because use of bing bird's eye is not allowed here due to licensing concerns | |
| 87226351 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-27 13:15 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | bird's eye can't be used as a source so i have completely deleted every object based on it |
| 87275930 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-29 06:55 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | use of bird's eye is not allowed on osm, so i have deleted all of the features that were based on bird's eye |
| 87388956 by UW Maddie @ 2020-07-01 08:58 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | every object that was based on bing bird's eye imagery has been deleted, because bird's eye is not allowed here |
| 88179055 by UW Maddie @ 2020-07-18 15:27 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | all objects sourced from bing bird's eye, which is not allowed, have been deleted to follow osm rules |
| 89706857 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-20 18:24 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | all objects based on bing bird's eye imagery have been deleted to align with osm rules |
| 85608633 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-22 11:31 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | anything only visible with bing bird's eye (unauthorized source) has been removed |
| 87351940 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-30 13:46 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | objects drawn based on bing bird's eye imagery have been deleted |
| 84682110 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-05 09:35 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | bird's eye (banned source) based objects have been removed now |
| 84516491 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-02 11:09 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | additoinal source: Bing Bird's Eye View |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | features created based on bird's eye imagery have been deleted | |
| 84509429 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-02 08:01 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | additional source used: "bing bird's eye"forgot to add it in the submission |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | bird's eye is not allowed so objects only visible with it have been deleted | |
| 85595145 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-22 07:55 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | removed objects from unauthorized source (bing bird's eye) |
| 85541038 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-21 08:34 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | UW Maddie | deleted objects only visible with bird's eye (unauthorized source) |
| 83098105 by UW Maddie @ 2020-04-05 12:43 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Glassman ♦5,828 | I noticed the footways on the South 216th Street bridge are missing layer=1. Adding the layer will help with rendering, routers and validating software. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83098105 |
| 76014837 by UW Maddie @ 2019-10-21 19:07 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,040 | Hi,you created many small areas with amenity=parking inside a large parking area - this is not allowed. Please use amenity=parking_space instead to mark individual spots for disabled people.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_spaceThanks |