Hi, most of your changeset comments are only a single letter long, which isn’t very descriptive. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments On the other hand, if you’re experiencing a bug in iD that’s truncating your changeset comments, please let the developers know at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/ . Thank you.

The terminology is a bit confusing; I think “pencil tip” actually refers to the style you applied. TomTom and Mapbox have historically been the main proponents of this style, though Mapbox is no longer active in mapping intersections.

As mentioned in that forum thread, routers have long accounted for the sharp turns you’re concerned about. The OSRM and Valhalla routers (used by Mapbox) average out the turn angle by looking at points further away from the intersection. Ironically, the pencil tip style sometimes foils this heuristic, as well as the heuristic for consolidating a complex intersection so you can hear “make a U-turn” instead of “turn left then turn left”.

On another level, the disagreement is over whether we should model how self-driving cars would travel through the intersection, or hew more closely to the physical separation principle. One reason mappers in California have complained about the pencil tip style is that it makes it difficult to distinguish the small traffic islands that are commonplace at an intersection. This is not so interesting to self-driving cars perhaps, but mappers are trying to think of a broader range of possible uses for the map.

I appreciate your openness to feedback. I would suggest continuing this discussion in the forum thread, because a changeset comment thread is unlikely to result in any broader changes anyways.

Please be careful remodeling intersections to include dual carriageways. This changeset appears to have broken a number of route relations. Additionally, the “tuning fork” or “pencil tip” modeling that led to this breakage is controversial globally and not preferred among mappers local to California. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/pencil-tip-intersections/1512

Moved to OpenHistoricalMap in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/86325 and deleted from OSM in changeset/140958637

Chào bạn, các giá trị như VN:CT và VN:QL thật có lý, nhưng các thay đổi này làm cho các bản đồ như OSM Americana không còn nhận ra các tuyến đường QL/CT để hiển thị số đường đúng màu. Dĩ nhiên có thể cập nhật OSM Americana nếu cộng đồng muốn sử dụng các giá trị này. Để tránh vấn đề mai mốt, tôi đã đề nghị thống nhất các giá trị này trong nhóm Facebook; xin bạn tham gia cho ý kiến. https://www.facebook.com/groups/openstreetmapvietnam/posts/1653123425098640/

Did you mean to tag this entire building as a McDonald’s flag?

To get started with OpenHistoricalMap, go to:

https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/

You can find out more about the project at:

osm.wiki/OpenHistoricalMap

Hi, thank you for taking the time to contribute this historical data. Unfortunately, historical data is ineligible for inclusion in OpenStreetMap. The good news is that our companion project OpenHistoricalMap welcomes historical rail data and is better suited for it. Would you mind contributing this information there instead? Let me know if you need help undoing the changes you’ve made here in OSM. Thanks for understanding!

Hi Pete, thanks for all the wonderful contributions you’ve made in this area. Have you considered contributing some of this historical information to OpenHistoricalMap as well? osm.wiki/OpenHistoricalMap There’s so much left to map over there that would complement the details here.

Hi, looks like this changeset included a few buildings that are identical to each other, in the exact same spot. I’m not sure how that happened, or why RapiD didn’t warn you about it when you added them in from the Microsoft Buildings dataset. Anyhow, changeset/139895241 deletes the two redundant buildings. If you see this kind of thing happen again in the future, I’m sure the RapiD team would welcome a bug report.

Fixed in changeset/139067157.

Removing ref=RM 1431 was incorrect. It hasn’t been FM 1431 since 1956.

If you want a relation representation for this road, there is an experimental “street” relation type, though you’d have to manually replace type=route with type=street in iD.

Thank you!

I’m not sure that’s fair. If you only disagreed with the highway classification changes, you should’ve only undone those changes without all the others, unless you had reason to believe you were dealing with vandalism, fiction, a copyright violation, or some other bad-faith edit. The revert plugin is convenient but not always the right tool for addressing problems in the database.

Looking at the history, you weren’t responsible for adding the tag originally, but your revert effectively added it back in. Please be careful using the reverter plugin; sometimes the mapper you’re reverting says they’re only changing one thing, but in fact they’re changing a lot of stuff that you might not disagree with (such as the relations in this changeset).

I think every way in this changeset was affected, for example: way/1119506496

Hi, is “OLD 31” signposted anywhere? This changeset seems to have introduced ref=OLD 31 as an alternative to old_ref=US 31, unless I’m misreading the history.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/dwg-username-impersonation/101212

Hi, I don’t think Mehring Way should be a primary road. Despite the routing of U.S. 27 and U.S. 52 along this street, it’s basically only for accessing the stadiums and parks and for some local truck traffic, but I don’t think it’s as much of a through route as 2nd and 3rd Streets (which aren’t part of any numbered route). Any objection to downgrading Mehring Way back to secondary?