Note Activities of lukobe

Note	#	⏱️ Last updated	Event	Contributor	Comment
4991499 Category: Unknown	1	~ 8 months ago	opened	tannewt ♦38	These primary_link's aren't labeled as 15th even though they are signed that way. I'm not sure they should be primary_link since they have other streets that connect to them. Maybe they should be simple roads that share the name like the roads south of here.
	2	~ 8 months ago	commented	pwbriggs ♦749	Huh, but then just south of here we have something tagged as 15th running parallel to one of these roads (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45979463 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43044238). Not sure if `*_link` is correct either.
	3	~ 8 months ago	commented	ICT_maps ♦11,558	Also suspicious that the road going over the bridge is named "Ballard Bridge" and not simply 15th Avenue Northwest. The "links" seem to act like outer roads for most of the length but do function as links for small portions.
	4	~ 8 months ago	commented	pwbriggs ♦749	Yeah, good point. Lots of suspicious mapping here but I'm not familiar with this area.
	5	~ 2 months ago	commented	lukobe ♦9	Those should all be marked as 15th. As for the road being named Ballard Bridge, yeah, that shouldn't be happening. It should be 15th NW to, I suppose, the point where the two leaves meet, and then 15th W south of there
	6	~ 2 months ago	closed	lukobe ♦9	I think the changes I've made resolved this issue
5230959 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	---	There is a fence here blocking access. That trail hugging treatment plant is not publicly accessible.
	2	~ 2 months ago	commented	lukobe ♦9	Why not add the fence and change the access attributes of the trail?
	3	~ 2 months ago	commented	pwbriggs ♦749	Sounds good to me. We just need a survey from non-anonymous now.
5218576 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	lukobe ♦9	Seems like the track should be marked razed between here and 1040 W Ewing..
	2	~ 2 months ago	commented	pwbriggs ♦749	You marked it as disused (i.e. in usable condition but signed for no use), which is different from razed (tracks removed), from here southeast to 1040 Ewing St . Which is it?
	3	~ 2 months ago	commented	lukobe ♦9	Hmm. What I MEANT to do was mark it as in use from here northwestward, and I could have sworn that when I came to make that change it was already marked as disused southeast of there. The track is not evident southeast of here so I was wondering if anyone knew why it was marked disused instead of razed. If it was indeed marked razed before I made my changes it's an easy fix back
	4	~ 2 months ago	closed	lukobe ♦9	I'll make the change since the track is definitely not there from what I saw today
	5	~ 2 months ago	reopened	pwbriggs ♦749
	6	~ 2 months ago	commented	pwbriggs ♦749	Okay. Track that is gone can just be deleted then.
	7	~ 2 months ago	closed	pwbriggs ♦749
5198566 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	lukobe ♦9	I could have sworn this ramp was open to HOV traffic, not just to buses. No? (Also, even if is open only to buses, is access tagged correctly?)
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	lukobe ♦9	There is for sure an HOV ramp from WB 520 that connects to this segment. I was just by there today. But I didn't take it since there were just two of us in the car and it requires three. Also did not see restrictions heading the other way from Montlake
	3	~ 3 months ago	commented	pwbriggs ♦749	Uuh, looks like it is tagged as HOV already? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
	4	~ 3 months ago	commented	lukobe ♦9	The issue is that it says motor_vehicle=no
	5	~ 3 months ago	commented	pwbriggs ♦749	Duh, completely missed that. So I think motor_vehicle=no should be access=no instead, and hov:lanes:= should be hov=*. Not an expert, LMK.
2742581	1	~ 4 years ago	opened	Wim L ♦531	address labels do not match house signs along here
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	lukobe ♦9	Can you be a little more specific