Thanks for mapping out this preserve! By the way, the OSIP 6in imagery layer is much better aligned and clearer for tracing than Bing.

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/72842955. Please do not replace a circular way with a single node tagged highway=turning_loop. The highway=turning_loop tag exists for mappers who don’t have the time to draw a loop, but if someone has taken the time to draw a loop, that detail should be preserved. If you could communicate this nuance to your colleagues, that would be much appreciated.

In practical terms, a large loop like this should never be represented by a single node, because the actual roadway is too far from the way. A turn-by-turn navigation application is likely to consider the user to be off-route due to their distance from the way.

Thanks for taking care of reverting those changes.

I’m curious about your effort to form continuous primary routes between county seats. Were your changes motivated by cartographic concerns perhaps? Or does ODOT have a program to directly connect county seats with primary roads? I know that was the case back in the days of the intercounty road system, but a lot of those roads are now fragmented by newer developments and realignments, especially in Southwest Ohio. Plus it seems like ODOT is more focused on limited-access bypasses and such.

Thanks for these changes. By the way, when you’re mapping in Ohio, please consider using the OSIP 6in layer wherever it’s available. It’s more up-to-date than Mapbox imagery and at least as clear and well-aligned.

changeset/72541941 reverts part of this changeset from Cuba to Leesburg. The bypass around New Vienna that you formed from township roads is nothing like what I’d expect of primary roads: they’re narrow, don’t have a double yellow line running down the middle, and at some points the pavement is so worn is looks almost like gravel. I retagged those roads as unclassified.

In case it helps, we have some Ohio-specific examples of each road classification that you can use as a guide:

osm.wiki/Ohio/Map_features#Road_classifications

Hi TZLNCTV, this road should not be highway=primary in its entirety. Parts of SR 28 and SR 73 certainly could be, based on connectivity, but for instance the stretch of SR 350 going through Fort Ancient isn’t even built to the usual state highway standards, and I suspect there are other problematic areas too. Even though on paper it would seem to be a decent connection between the two cities, parts can be windy and slow, and there are weight restrictions all along.

What do you think about reverting SR 350 back to secondary and promoting SR 73 from New Vienna to Wilmington?

Thank you for the clarification; I’ll keep that in mind in the future. changeset/72410107 switches the main name to Phở Hòa, including the diacritical marks.

Undeleted the Anderson Township boundary in changeset/72098204.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69732445

Deleted the fictitious church in changeset/71912688.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67664298

I agree with you in general, but in this case the insurance agency, bail bond agency, and driving school are all one office – a single desk in a single office, at that. The fact that there are two websites for the same business isn’t really verifiable on the ground, but I added that tag as an FYI. In the insurance and bail bond industries, it’s very common for a single business to have two or three separate websites for better SEO.

On a practical level, most renderers give it the same treatment as any office (due to the office tag). Some renderers, like Mapbox Streets, elide the bail_bond_agent value, turning it into office=insurance. Nominatim calls it an “Insurance;bail bond agent”.

I was uncertain about this case at first, but the business’s driving school isn’t as important as its insurance and bonding services, so I think it’s OK to leave the driving school tag where it is.

Hi, thanks for helping to keep this area up to date. Unfortunately, this changeset broke several turn restrictions and turn lane data along several roads. Where turn lane tags are used, please start ramps and turn channels at the end of the turn lane. Sometimes this may result in less smooth geometry at the highest zoom levels, but this is the only way to preserve data necessary for proper routing.

Do you have a source for the abandoned Cincinnati Subway that you’ve drawn? It looks like you included a small loop around the present-day Fountain Square, but according to http://www.thecincinnatisubway.com/p/map.html , the subway never made it south of Central Parkway. I’m also unable to find anything claiming that there was ever supposed to be a loop around this block.

More information at osm.wiki/TIGER_fixup#Road_names

Please note that this change and any changes like it are incorrect. TIGER places a space after “O” because it can’t encode apostrophes, but there is always an apostrophe and no space after “O” at the beginning of Irish surnames.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA is from the Downtown Mountain View station. (I took it from the comfort of a second-story seat on Caltrain.) The new signage has also gone up along the 1st St. corridor, if not elsewhere, though it isn’t reflected in Mapillary or OpenStreetCam yet.

The current plan of record is illustrated at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VTA_Light_Rail_map_after_NTSP.svg , based on VTA documents. Full information about the New Transit Service Plan is at http://newtransitplan.vta.org/ .

I think the new signage went up prematurely (or proactively) because BART’s timelines keep slipping. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that it’s being phased in, starting with the least critical station signage. Departure boards and onboard signage will probably be the last to change.

site_ownership=regional on boundary=protected_area may be workable, though it’s considerably more ambiguous than admin_level=4. It sounds like county parks would also be tagged boundary=protected_area site_ownership=regional.

Since it appears that you systematically removed admin_level=4 without any replacement from state parks across the U.S., would you mind adding site_ownership=regional to the parks you touched? It’s difficult for anyone else to do it because you edited each park in its own changeset. If not, a listing or GeoJSON of the parks you touched would be fine; then the community could coordinate changes on our end, either using Maproulette or something more manual.

Finally, please note that admin_level=* certainly may be used on features that are not boundary=administrative or boundary=*. admin_level=* is a secondary tag that can be applied in combination with various primary tags, not all of which are boundary=*. This much is clear from admin_level=* and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/admin_level#combinations .

There’s nothing illegal about a curly apostrophe.

I’m not sure I understand. This is a state park, not a national park. admin_level=4 was used to clarify that the boundary is for a state park, despite the (admittedly confusing) boundary=national_park tag. The admin_level tag didn’t indicate that this *is* a state; that would require boundary=administrative.

The combination of boundary=national_park + admin_level=4 was common in the U.S. before you systematically removed all the admin_level tags. Since you disagree with the admin_level tags on non-administrative boundaries, do you have a preferred, machine-readable way to distinguish national parks from state parks? In many cases, state parks are functionally equivalent to national parks, just with a different level of ownership.

Without a replacement tagging scheme, I would be tempted to revert this and similar changes, since it’s unlikely that a data consumer would mistakenly treat boundary=national_park admin_level=4 as a state administrative boundary.

Clarification: The Mountain View–Winchester line will be an O in an orange circle after BART opens, so some signs have been updated to that instead.

Unlike the other routes that have been entered, route 11 is designated and signposted by the City of San José. I’ve never actually seen a VTA map that indicates route numbers; do you know where they come from?

The VTA LRT maps are posted on information boards at each station, so it’s no different than signage as far as I’m concerned.

I do consider publications distributed on the spot to satisfy the “on the ground” rule. For example, I often add contact information to business POIs based on receipts I’ve gathered. On the other hand, I draw the line at planning documents that one has to go out of their way to obtain; tags like unsigned_ref and official_name are more appropriate for those cases.

By the way, last year, VTA started replacing the color-coded destination icons with color-coded route icons on station signage. For example, the Mountain View–Winchester line is now represented by a B in a blue circle. But it’s in a state of limbo until BART Silicon Valley comes into service and the routes are reconfigured: onboard the trains, the routes are still posted and announced the old way, by destination, and the VTA’s website still shows the destination icons.

Compare the old and new sign designs:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/cidGJeIL_L4FuTfv9HMm2A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/gm-HoE1ONioHi2NUQPHA4A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA