FYI, some of the flags had the correct flag:wikidata but a less specific flag:name. (I avoided creating separate NSI entries for them at the time, because I didn’t want these historical flags to be overrepresented in a still small part of the index.)

How would you distinguish between an undivided intersection that allows U-turns and one on the same undivided street that prohibits U-turns? Sure, most routers wouldn’t suggest making a U-turn here anyways, but most likely the authorities posted the sign here because a parent would otherwise be tempted to pull a Uey to drop their kid off at the school.

If you think non-universal legal restrictions should be disregarded except by mapping an ignorable sign node, then under what criteria would a turn restriction ever be mapped? If it’s based on the “flow of traffic” irrespective of a regulatory sign that’s enforceable, one wonders how turn restrictions could ever be verifiable.

If I understand correctly, these are essentially divisions of a single government agency (CAL FIRE). It’s much more common to indicate this kind of detail in operator tags of relevant features. For example, each CAL FIRE station within the CZU unit would be tagged:

operator=CAL FIRE San Mateo–Santa Cruz Unit
operator:wikidata=Q99306333

It’s possible that some CAL FIRE stations don’t even have any indication on them that they’re operated by CAL FIRE yet, so this would be a clear improvement.

The operator:wikidata tag would allow someone to easily query for all the stations operated by the unit without worrying about exactly how the name is spelled. Wikidata items have only been created for a few of the units so far, but more can be created using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q99306333 as a model.

I meant to say: name:was is for the name in the Washo language; use old_name for the former name

access=private private=employees is a more accurate way to express the restriction than access=no, which means that no one (other than perhaps emergency personnel) can access the facility. If a routing engine is sending users onto the tarmac, the routing engine should be given a more specific waypoint than the middle of the airfield, such as a terminal or terminal door.

Morgan Hill boundary restored in changeset/125384083.

Huh, I must’ve misclicked or something. Fixed in changeset/125208043.

You can either tag it as highway=proposed proposed=cycleway (only works for highway=*) or with a lifecycle prefix like proposed:highway=cycleway (works for any kind of feature).

Note that proposed features don’t necessarily render in mainstream map styles, mainly because these tags have historically been misused to map very aspirational or nebulous proposals. But that shouldn’t necessarily stopping you from mapping a concrete proposal that has a good chance of becoming reality.

Hi, OpenStreetMap isn’t generally the place to record historic details that are no longer present in some manner. As you’ve noted, these houses are now private property (and one of them apparently takes pains to inform visitors of that). It would be inappropriate to draw attention to these houses as if they’re tourist attractions, let alone tag them as neighborhood boundaries as you’ve done. See osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information for some things to keep in mind as you map private residences.

The Steve Jobs Garage is unquestionably a notable place, but it’s better to stick to the facts: changeset/125002456 downgrades the plot to just a plot and instead tags the garage itself as being listed on the Los Altos historic register. To avoid calling undue attention to the property, I’ve added more details to their neighbors along the street, and I encourage you to add similar detail.

If you’d like to record historical information that’s no longer present on the ground, please consider contributing to OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ It’s just getting off the ground, but there’s a lot of opportunity to geek out about the history of the software industry there.

Hi, access=permit is for situations where the general public is allowed but needs to stop at an office to purchase a pass, typically at a state or national park. When you see a sign that says “Authorized Vehicles Only”, that usually means access=no emergency=designated. This looks like it would be an emergency crossover for police vehicles.

This is an amazing level of detail; thanks for taking the time to catalog all these species and tree numbers. The name tag is intended for the actual name of an individual tree, typically for a famous tree or one that’s dedicated in someone’s memory (which you’re more than welcome to indicate). For these other details, please use the ref and species keys.

For example, node/8947755108 would be retagged as:

natural=tree
leaf_type=broadleaved
ref=325
species=Ulmus parvifolia
species:wikidata=Q1074099

If you don’t know the scientific name or Wikidata ID of a species, you can stick the common name in species:en and someone can come along and refine it later.

If a tree has been removed, as in node/8943112399 , please refrain from mapping it in OSM, or at least tag it as removed:natural=tree instead of natural=tree, because data consumers won’t be able to understand the “removed” you put in the name.

Better yet, consider helping out with https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ where historical details are more than welcome. (It’s just getting started, but there’s no harm in adding in some trees as a starting point.)

Hi, these are actually geoglyphs that appear to be advertising a nearby POI. See the discussion in changeset/123447364.

I used the CD:NGI imagery layer, which is the “best” layer for this region. It was taken in 2012, but it’s the only available imagery taken off-season, when these markings would be visible instead of crops.

For now, I reverted this deletion in changeset/124707407, but if you have reason to believe that the markings have been removed since 2012 or know of a better way to tag them, please feel free to fix it again.

For future reference, here’s a recap of all the relations that I’ve fixed that were incompletely reverted by this changeset:

U.S. 2 in changeset/124171132
U.S. 6 in changeset/124155648
U.S. 9 in changeset/124171210
U.S. 10 in changeset/124177930
U.S. 25 in changeset/124176718
U.S. 29 in changeset/124176907
U.S. 33 in changeset/124178051
U.S. 34 in changeset/124178186
U.S. 35 in changeset/124172891
U.S. 41 in changeset/124171800
U.S. 44 in changeset/124157306
U.S. 45 in changeset/124170474
U.S. 52 in changeset/124155180
U.S. 56 in changeset/124179111
U.S. 59 in changeset/124171561
U.S. 60 in changeset/124178687
U.S. 61 in changeset/124157802
U.S. 62 in changeset/124158939

changeset/104513531 incorrectly conflated U.S. 13 Bus. with U.S. 13. The latter was restored in changeset/124180464.

Changesets 104473758 through 104586385 removed some ways from route relations entirely instead of pushing them down to subrelations. I’ve attempted to add as many as I could find to the subrelations, but some gaps may remain.

Much less importantly, this changeset sorted each superrelation’s members by name or relation ID, whereas it had previously been common to arrange them geographically. I’ve restored the geographical sorting for consistency with other route networks.

Finally, this changeset replaced type=route with type=superroute. In the course of reverting the major issues above, this tag has been changed back to type=route. type=superroute has its adherents, but it generally isn’t used in the U.S., since the distinction makes little sense when the combination of multi-state routes with two or more signposted directions can result in multi-level relation structures. (If anything, the topmost relation is the route per se; everything below it is mere route segments.)

I think this should more or less take care of everything that was broken in changesets 104473758 through 104846286, so you won’t keep getting messages about it from me. :-)

If you need help with anything else relation-wise, please let me know or swing by OSMUS Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) to chat with the community about it.

Hi, I reverted this change as part of changeset/124155648 for consistency with other relations that nest each direction under the state’s route superrelation. Hope that isn’t a problem!

changeset/124154479 restores the full U.S. 50 relation.

Hi, I noticed you’ve retagged many of the streets in downtown Knoxville as highway=living_street. Living streets are a largely European concept that rarely if ever occurs in the U.S. – very low-speed streets that tolerate cars but are primarily intended for pedestrians, who have the right of way. There’s a special sign for it and everything. highway=living_street

During the pandemic, some mappers did stretch this tag to include “slow streets” programs that encouraged outdoor dining on city streets, though most of those programs have since been curtailed. Has this been the case in Knoxville?

I traced these geoglyphs from South Africa CD:NGI Aerial imagery, which is the default imagery layer in this area. (I think it’s supposed to be an advertisement for a roadhouse.)

This change has been reverted for a second time in changeset/123539571. Your company’s data is outdated and contradicts newer information that I have gathered from repeated field surveys.

For proof, please see the following:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Union_Pacific_Warm_Springs_Corridor_Quiet_Zone_-_Jackson_Street_facing_railroad_crossing.jpg
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/transit/union-pacific-warm-springs-corridor-quiet-zone

Please update your systems to stop flagging this crossing as a two-way road. Thank you.

The Bing and Esri imagery showing the fallen tree is from late 2020, according to the metadata for those images. None of the other layers offer such metadata but are most likely older.

Thanks for taking care of the retagging so quickly. The idea that a one-off trip could prove decisive against years of inactivity boggles my mind. There’s a parallel discussion in Slack about when to call a road under construction versus no-access with a very different conclusion. But with rail, I suppose any state of disrepair can be temporarily mitigated with enough resources, staff, and… intention.

I retagged the fallen tree as removed in changeset/123344330 based on the understanding that this segment was the only way last year‘s demonstration train could’ve made it to Santa Cruz. I can’t find any timestamped imagery to corroborate it yet.

These had been the only railroad=* ways in California with maxspeed not explicitly set to miles per hour, so at this point we can enter these values in mph without having to convert or worry about misinterpretation.

I’m still genuinely curious about the best way to tag a wigwag. In this changeset, I used crossing:light=wigwag, but maybe it should be a separate node representing the device itself, since it’s so rare.