Also, the area enclsded by way id:664723893 is visible on DigitalGlobe-Standard and is not a building or a pond. Please check your edits in the area.

Well, the place you tagged is actually a paved area where people can walk. There are small garden beds inside it but they are purely ornamental. It's the outer way tag I disagree with.

Actually, I am familiar with the Boston Common. I lived in Boston for 10 years back in the 70s. The name is a carry-over from when that place, correctly tagged as a park in OSM, was actually a "common", a multiple-use area available to the locals, the commoners. That's why I say controversial. Many places in the U.S. that have the word "common" in their names are better tagged as parks, as is this one in Boston.

The place in Anchorage is merely a large paved area. The garden areas are not part of the paved area (as they are inners in the overall multipolygon), so would not be part of the highway=pedestrian.

Thank you for your prompt reply. I see you did quite a bit of mapping in Anchorage. Just out of curiosity, where do you live? Sinc my retirement, I live in Thailand 7 months of the year and only go back to Alaska for summers. I love Alaska but its winters no longer excite me LOL
Dave

Hi,
I was adding a shop in downtown Anchorage today and came across this area that you tagged leisure=common. That tag is on the way, however, that way is also part of a relation that is tagged with highway=pedestrian.
IMO, highway=pedestrian (with area=yes) would be the more correct tagging scheme.
The use of leisure=common is a bit controversial, especially in a city.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Dave

Wow, my hat's off to you Kurt. I can't imaging climbing that SOB at my age. I still think highway=path might be better suited because of the whole idea of footway being designated, that is, legally restricted, for pedestrian traffic. I'm retagging the footways I added on the Iditarod Trail in Alaska for the same reason. But I'm happy to leave that decision to you.
Dave

Hi,
I noticed you added a way as highway=footway in this changeset. I doubt it meets the definition as defined in the Wiki, "For designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for pedestrians". I'm betting it's a narrow path used by motorcycles. Have you visited the footway personally? I have not but I am familiar with the general area and find it hard to believe such a designation exits for that way.
Cheers,
Dave

No problem. Sorry I took such a stern tone yesterday. I'm used to being the only mapper working in these remote areas. If the Conflict Dialog was more informative and straightforward to use it would make it so much easier to resolve them. I had to quit my session and then come back to clean up stray nodes later.
Thanks for the quick reply, b-jazz. I'm slowly adding parts of the giant Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. One of the up sides is that its boundary often follows the coast making it a good replacement for the ugly PGS coastlines imported years ago. The down side is that it's such a massive refuge.

Hi,

I noticed you removed the man_made=pier tag from a pier in Dutch Harbor. You saved it as natural=coastline, with access=private and surface=wood but removed the man_made=pier tag so it makes no sense now.

Can you take a look? It is way id:21477171

Thanks,
Dave

bjazz,

I'm working in that area and have been replacing coastlines. I just had to quit a session because of too many conflicts to deal with, it appears that they were your edits.

Let me now when you're through so I can patch things up.

I agree that those PGS coastlines are an abomination and I usually delete the source tag but I am doing so many modifications lately I sometimes forget.
Feel free to remove it if you come across a coastline that has been aligned by me or anybody else.

Thanks Cliff.
I think Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge is the correct name. I can change it easily as I'm mapping in that area already.
My town Homer, got some heavy shaking but no major damage. I didn't feel a thing because since I retired I've been living in Thailand during the winters. LOL. Too damn cold and dark up north.

It's not the name of the island I'm asking about. It's the name of the refuge.
My shapefile for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge is a perfect copy of your boundary for the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge on Unimak Island. Which is correct, Izembek or Alaska Maritime?

Hi again Clifford,
I am working on adding the giant Alaska Maritime NWR and came across your work where yu added Unimak Island as part of the Izembek NWR. Indeed, the shapefile you gave me a while ago for Izemebek does include Unimak Island. However, my shapefile for the Alaska Maritime NWR includes Unimak Island also — all the boundaries included in my shapefile match yours perfectly except for the name.
Can you check your source file to help resolve this?

Hi Russ,

I was working in the area, made a few edits but when uploading, JOSM complained about the old-style tag you used:
highway=ford. I removed that and substituted ford=yes. But is this place actually a tourism attraction?
Also, the highways in that area are tagged as tracks but another user commented on his changeset that he has driven them and they were concrete paved. I commented on that and hopefully he will get back to me.
Are these ways paved?

The other way is id:260723853. Your comment on this changeset is "just drove this road and can confirmed it is concreate paved"

Hi,
I noticed this changeset comment on this way id:260723849, and another that connects to it. But the surface is still tagged as unpaved.
I'm convinced these are not tracks but either unclassified or residential ways but knowing what the surface is would be helpful.
Can you check on that?

Okay, thanks. I'm going to replace what's there with the data from the US National Park Service that I have. I'll fix up the coastline while I'm at it.

Hector:
I'm confused about the boundary for the Aniakchak National Preserve. You added several boundary ways that look wrong to me, way:482748961, way:276151571, way:276151567. I think the boundary follows the coastline rather than the way you mapped it.
Can you comment on that?

Hi Matt,
I'm trying to complete the work started by NJSkunk in Denali NP. Now, I see that you changed portions of the Park Road to highway=service.
I'm thinking that while in some sense the entire highway is a service road, it is also an important highway and perhaps should be tagged accordingly. I'd like to make it at least a tertiary highwau for it's entire length.

If you have a compelling argument against this change, let me know.

Cheers
Dave

Hi,
How did you decide to divide this wetland and tag way:332678202 as a beach_resort?

I'm not intimately familiar with the Anchorage shoreline but that AFAIK the area is muddy and nobody uses it as a resort. Unless something major has changed.

Gerd,
I'm not saying remove way tags from ALL pipelines! We're talking about one pipeline, the TAPS. In the TAPS there is only one substance=oil, and it is carried in a single man_made=pipeline. In this case, those tags belong in the relation and not on the way. I doesn't hurt to have them on ways, it's just totally unnecessary.

As for the thread, the two people who disagree with me are you and Mateusz. Did you read Kevin Kenny's comment at the top of the section you have in that link?

He said, "On a multipolygon, as I observed before, every attribute belongs to the multipolygon unless the way has some existence apart from its role in defining the multipolygon boundary."

"Some existence apart from defining the boundary" means some attribute that makes that member different such as surface, maxspeed, location, etc. Those are the tags that belongs on the individual member and not on the top level relation or multipolygon.

If I haven't convinced you by now and you don't believe what's in the Wiki, presumably written by experts, than I'm ready to quit this discussion. You can continue to do things the way you've always done them and I'll do things the way I think the Wiki means us to do them.
Best,
Dave