Hi, thanks for asking. Based on the DirecTV logo visible in the window in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=478695443574475 , I surmised that it’s the office of a satellite TV dish installation business. I’m aware of shop=telecommunication and office=telecommunication, but those tags don’t quite connote this kind of business. It’s much closer to an electrician’s office (craft=electrician), but you can stop by to learn about all the wonderful TV channels they offer.

Anyhow, newer imagery in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=220088529593251 shows that the business has been replaced by something called “CMB”, though I can’t figure out what kind of business it is. I retagged it as shop=yes in changeset/115368832.

Hi, do you recall why the U.S. 62 designation needed to be moved to the end of the list of route numbers in these ref tags? Comparing way/255092322 to https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1919723721518855 and way/197144648 to https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=528759105199990, I don’t see any evidence that it normally goes last in a route marker assembly or in other contexts. Did New Mexico or Texas do something different at the time? Just trying to verify my long-held assumption that route number ordering can be idiosyncratic.

Parallel lines would represent these standalone curbs too similarly to curbs that surround a traffic island, but anyways Bing imagery doesn’t have high enough resolution to distinguish the gaps in the curbs that allow stormwater to pass through, let alone the edges of the curbs.

In changeset/114597028, I split up the ways so that they don’t double back on themselves. That should satisfy any validator for topology, though there are still coincident curbs.

They’re more like curbs than walls, hence the kerb:height=6" tags. They’re tapered so that emergency vehicles and delivery vans can back in directly from the through lanes. Here’s what they look like on the ground:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frontage_lane_on_South_11th_Street_before_San_Fernando_Street,_San_Jose,_California.jpg

It’s awkward because barrier=kerb was defined with the assumption that a curb separates a sidewalk from the street, oblivious to this kind of divider. There’s some additional discussion on this topic on the wiki:

osm.wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#.22Double_sided.22_kerbs

Maybe it would be better to add a tag indicating that it’s double-sided?

Are these county roads actually ever referred to by prefixed route numbers like “CR 600 E”? I’m afraid you might’ve copied some mistaken tagging I did years ago in counties to the south. I even blithely ignored the north–south part of the street names because they didn’t fit my mental model of how route refs worked. These street grid–based numbered county roads should just be named, unless there’s a clear reason why they should be modeled as routes too.

For context, I brought up this issue in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-November/021466.html . Please weigh in there with your observations if you can.

I deleted the charging station in changeset/114034899.

Well, it’s your driveway in a free country. If naming it motivates you to stick around and help us build out coverage of the East Side, then there are bigger fish to fry, like all the missing subdivision names around here. And if you really do care about this name, you can probably get a custom sign printed at a number of nearby shops (which are also missing).

I’m sorry your experience so far has been battling to get edits to stick, but we’re trying to hold the line against pranksters, you know?

If you’re interested, lots of mappers hang out on Slack and Discord. It’d be a better way to get to know the community than a changeset comment thread: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Technically, it would be more difficult to remove than the name tag on this driveway. 😛

However “vanity street names“ are usually posted is fine – it doesn’t have to be a standard street name sign, but it would have to be posted in a permanent way. In general, roadways are only named in OSM if the name can reasonably be used for wayfinding. Otherwise, someone getting directions to your Airbnb would be told to look for a street by this name and likely miss it.

This was caused by https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2657, which has since been fixed.

Which roads are you referring to? This is an ancient changeset based on imagery that’s no longer available online, so I don’t think I can really answer your question without more information.

TIGER represents divided roads as single lines, so we have to manually split them into parallel ways. I did that for the remainder of St. Andrews in changeset/113645057.

👍

changeset/70665554 had eviscerated this relation by mistake, leaving just one of the members in tact. I’ve reverted that changeset and this one in changeset/111940282 to restore the full 3D building.

Hi, what you deleted were actually the details that allow some maps to show the St. Peter in Chains building in 3D. The editor you were using didn’t recognize 3D building parts at the time, so I’m sure it looked like a mess, but it’s better now. I’ve undone your changes in changeset/111940282. In a short while, you’ll be able to see what it looks like in F4Map for example:

https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=39.1035912&lon=-84.5191434&zoom=19

Some of these may be good candidates for tagging as Driveway (service=driveway) or Alley (service=alley), though a plain Service Road (highway=service) would be appropriate for shared driveways, at least until a more specific tag for them arises.

The access=* key is intended for a legal access restriction, such as one that would be established by posting a No Trespassing sign. The shared driveways aren’t public roads in the sense that they aren’t publicly owned, but if for example a delivery vehicle can go there, then it isn’t really the same as having a No Trespassing sign.

The Mapbox Streets source assigns its “street_limited” class to roads with access=private among other things. But it also has a “service” class, corresponding to the highway=service tag, that’s intended for public and private driveways in general: https://docs.mapbox.com/vector-tiles/reference/mapbox-streets-v8/#--road---class-text If the particular map you’re using makes the “service” class look too much like a through street, that could be a bug on the application’s part rather than a data issue.

In any case, kudos for the attention you’re paying to the quality of the road network as you work towards your goal. In case you’re interested, the local volunteer mapping community meets online every other week to chat and learn about OSM: https://www.meetup.com/Code-for-San-Jose/ You can also connect with other mappers who run all the streets on OSMUS Slack: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

You’re absolutely correct in using access=private on driveways that have gates or no trespassing signs. I was just unsure about your intent because some of the driveways didn’t appear to have gates mapped; I didn’t know if you had intended to tag all driveways as access=private on the basis of their ownership.

Routers already more or less assume access=destination on driveways by default, by penalizing them heavily and not allowing them to be used as cut-throughs, so it’s OK to leave the access key blank in cases where there’s nothing explicitly preventing access.

Hi, thanks for taking the time to detail these driveways and shared driveways, especially those gates. In case you aren’t aware, the access=private tag is specifically about restrictions on who may enter or pass through a property. There’s a different tag, ownership=private, for indicating that a property is privately owned: ownership=* . There isn’t a built-in field for ownership=private, but you can add it in the Tags section.

Hi, I changed this stretch of the 101 back to a motorway because signs at the Monterey St. on-ramp say “Freeway Entrance”.

Bicycles are sometimes allowed on Interstates in California. (Notably, a large stretch of I-280 in San Mateo Co. allows bicycles.) The roadways in question already have bicycle=yes tags to indicate that bicycles are allowed. If you’re seeing different behavior from a routing engine, it may be due to a bug in that routing engine.

Hi, you spotted a very outdated line on the wiki that was added back in 2009, before the U.S. community had really coalesced around any best practices for road classification. I think it just got overlooked in the years since. I’m sorry it wound up causing confusion.

In general, a state DOT’s functional classification system can be a useful starting point for road classification in OSM. However, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, in part because the internationally developed highway=* key has values that don’t align with HFCS.

The longstanding U.S. standard for OSM road classification isn’t strictly tied to any DOT classifications: osm.wiki/United_States/Road_classification . (You may be interested in a recent proposal to refresh the standard: osm.wiki/United_States/Highway_classification .) There’s also a separate key, HFCS=* , that allows you to indicate the functional classification regardless of any other considerations.