When I talked with a worker here, it sounded more like a collective of several religious organizations here. They are actually separate churches here *and* there are classrooms for the Academy. There's a Spanish speaking church here and an Ethiopian church here too. One of the rooms hosts mass for kids too. They host the main mass in the main building, and they have banners advertising the time of the services for each room. That sounds like different places of worship to me.

It's an unusual place. The Home Church expanded into the shopping center as the other businesses left. The Home Church is the main organization here managing most of the property, and a lot of the rooms are multi-purpose. Only the café and KFC are the businesses that are left here.

When I talked to a person that worked here, Second Harvest food distribution also happens on Friday mornings (https://www.thehomechurch.org/care-support/food-ministry), and Trail Life Troop 337 meet here.

I'd like to request that you not remove this part of my change because these rooms are separate places of worship. The offices to the south are not a place of worship. If you can clarify what you mean by "one church", maybe we can clarify the data so that there is less confusion. I was certainly confused when I first encountered this collective religious area that isn't really a shopping center.

Do you have a better source?

This segment is between a 50 MPH northbound speed limit sign north of Saratoga and a 35 MPH southbound speed limit south of CVS. This gap is ambiguous, especially since there are multiple lanes in each direction. This gap is also owned by San Jose as far as I know. There are several of these ambiguous areas in San Jose and Campbell. The worst is near Santana Row on Winchester due to speed limit signs that I can't find.

San Tomas Expressway. & Camden Avenue between Winchester and South Bascom are also ambiguous.

The park information has been updated with the confirmed information.

Yeah that source has the address. I’ll update the park accordingly later today.

Many other San Jose parks have parcel numbers and addresses in Santa Clara LAFCO. This park isn't one of them, and the references to this location show up as Kurte Park, Communications Hill without a numbered address. If you feel that it's a valid address, it would be helpful if you can cite an authoritative source of the address. If there were buildings there, they aren't there now.

I question the existence of the address. This parcel does not have an APN nor does it have an address according to Santa Clara LAFCO. These "buildings" do not exist on any satellite imagery available.

That's why I left the next segment below as is with its warnings and marked private access. That one to the south is wide enough for people to use without walking on the tracks. Though it's technically trespassing when used by the public. In this case, someone else also noticed that this path looks questionable, which I agreed with. I struggled to see the full path in the satellite imagery. It's very narrow in segments. So my basis of removing it is based on it actually existing. This isn't like the historical railroads where they have been completely removed (razed) with buildings on them. At least those existed at one point. This path seems more like wishful thinking based on the history than it being a real physical path.

I've driven under and over that bridge many times over the decades. Bernal goes over both Monterey and the railroad. Both Monterey and the railroad are at the same grade and are unfortunately too easy to cross by foot. You can also use Mapillary or StreetView to confirm that the Bernal Road bridge crosses all of it. The 2 bridges to the north and the next bridge to the south use the same layering scheme. Monterey, the sidewalk and railroad are at the same level and should be considered layer 0.

People have been known to cross this railroad and highway instead of the bridge at this area. In fact, Xander's Crossing to the north of here is named after a young child (Alexander Arriaga) that was killed by a train that was crossing the railroad in 2005 exactly where that bridge is located now. It was a tragic accident and all over the news. That area is pretty similar to this area.

There are not 3 layers here, and I'm sure of it.

Thanks I made the update.

This is a sign where the max speed is only when taking the left track instead of going straight. The sign is yellow with a left arrow underneath the numbers on the pole on left side of the track. The tag is trying to follow the format described here: osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Tagging

Though I do admit that it’s missing the @. The condition is when going left and nothing more.

I had originally deleted the FIXME for this issue, since the limit was already on the track, and I was having a hard time addressing the FIXME tag to tag the sign correctly. @impiaaa didn’t like that solution.

The previous discussion on this topic can be found here: changeset/137889032

If it's a foot path, access=no wouldn't work. Your argument also seems contradictory by saying that it should be marked with access=no, but still have it connected for a proper routing network.

In any case, I reconnected it, and marked it private. It shouldn't be used by normal lay people nor be proposed by apps for excessively trusting people to follow. It's obviously meant just for maintenance workers.

The stairs to road still exist. The non-existent “foot path” crossing lanes of the freeway were removed. I also marked it access private. It still connects to the off ramp.

After spending another hour on the topic, I think I can use maxspeed:left:conditional to achieve what was being requested. I’ve made that change.

Actually, it's not quite like that. The speed limit data is already in the map, but it's not in the form requested. The speed limit is already on the tracks and not to the sign. I looked elsewhere on the map for examples, and they were only on the tracks themselves and no signs were used. Putting the same speed limit data in 2 places (the sign and the tracks) seemed redundant and problematic to keep in sync in the future.

Actually it is already surface=dirt, just like SF Giants stadium too. Most other baseball fields don't mark the infield area. It made sense to mark the area as sand, since it's not like the hard clay dirt that you see in a typical field. It's easier to slide on without little rocks tearing into your clothing.

Thanks

Good point. I've added place=suburb just like the Buena Vista and Willow Glen neighborhoods in San Jose. This one seems to be in Campbell though.

Perhaps I misunderstood the issue. I have reverted the change for now, until I can look deeper into this issue.

changeset/137697192

I didn’t think I was blindly changing this. The tags were slightly different, and I merged them. I’d be happy to hear what I did wrong. As far as I can tell, only the self relationship was lost and the rest of the data was kept. I thought that the relationship was supposed to work with other parts of the building and not the bottom part relating to itself on the lower part. Perhaps the relationship of the bottom part was supposed to be for the top part instead?

Yeah, the error that I saw said that "An entity must be present only once, remove one and eventually merge the tags."