Sorry to hear about harishwr’s situation – best wishes to him, and thanks to your team for the attention you’ve lavished on this part of the map.

The coastline ways shouldn’t be named. The name on way/591823494 seems to be an error left over from when changeset/57065106 introduced relation/8099409 .

(Correction: the San Francisco Bay relation, 9451753, includes ways redundant to the coastline ways, but not the coastline ways themselves. I’m unsure about the history behind that approach, but it does seem to result in a correct representation of the bay.)

Which application did you check? The San Francisco Bay Area relation at relation/9451753 includes all the coastline ways as members, so it forms a polygon. If the application represents it as a point, it’s probably calculating the centroid automatically.

Is it possible to have it both ways? I realize it isn’t an exactly analogous situation, but San Francisco Bay appears to be mapped as both a bay and as a series of coastlines, and it seems to have been that way for a long time without breaking renderers and other data consumers:

relation/9451753
way/157480226

Nothing about the coastlines explicitly claims that the San Francisco Bay is part of the Pacific Ocean, so the only semantic challenge might be some redundancy between the bay and its coastlines. But that could be resolved by making the coastline ways part of the bay relation.

In the case of the Chesapeake Bay, that would just be a matter of adding the coastline tags back to the ways surrounding the bay, but otherwise retaining the (useful!) bay relation.

Reverted in changeset/94184842.

Hi, please use an orthorectified imagery layer such as OSIP 6in when realigning roads. This bridge is straight, not crooked as in the Esri imagery. Thanks for your attention.

Hi, it looks like you accidentally changed a county border to a road. It probably happened because the border goes down the middle of Fields Ertel, which was already mapped as a road. The border apparently got selected when you tried to click on the road. To avoid accidentally editing borders in the future, you can filter them out by opening the Map Data panel on the right and deselecting Boundaries in the Map Features section. Let me know if you have any questions or run into any problems mapping something.

https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictSix/Pages/Brent-Spence-Bridge-Update.aspx tracks reopening for both the bridge and the river.

No, I didn’t need to because the road geometries were already in good shape. I recorded voice notes from a trip to this area and entered all the details after I got back.

If I’m interpreting the changeset tags correctly, you’re citing osm.wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2045889#Multiple_names as justification for listing only one name in name=* (the Spanish name). But that page doesn’t preclude the inclusion of multiple names in name=* in exceptional cases. Did you have another page in mind?

Here, the Spanish and English names roughly in the same ballpark in terms of international geographic relevance, even if the Spanish name is slightly more prominent in terms of coastline. Other North American bodies of water that straddle official linguistic boundaries, like the Gulf of Saint Lawrence or the Bering Strait, are still tagged with multiple names.

There’s also this lengthy thread about (among other things) the prospect of applying multiple names to name=* on international bodies of water: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-January/thread.html#83774 . It doesn’t seem to have arrived at a consensus, but it does highlight that the issue isn’t cut and dry.

Sorry, I won’t do it again. If it helps, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ZQ8 returns elements that were added or changed in this changeset. A more sophisticated attic query could return deleted elements as well.

More context about boundary=census at boundary=census#United_States . It’s important to maintain a distinction between administrative boundaries and CDPs because these boundaries are determined and used very differently.

As Elliott pointed out, your apparent desire to be ranked based on a CDP would be useful feedback to the developers of CityStrides. boundary=census relations should be straightforward for them to process just like boundary=administrative relations.

Regarding the fixmes on misaligned buildings, it’s a much broader issue: back in 2009 or so, I drew many buildings in Cincinnati by tracing Yahoo! Aerial Imagery in Potlatch 1. Yahoo! imagery was already grainy at zoom level 17, and Potlatch 1 lacked a way to square the corners of an area. So it’s a mess. Rather than individually tagging each of those buildings, perhaps you’d be interested in helping with phase 2 (manual conflation) of osm.wiki/Hamilton_County_Building_Import ? Some of the buildings you tagged with fixme came from the CAGIS dataset, which seems to be based on LiDAR, so I’d expect them to be very well aligned in general.

Hi, please use Maxar imagery if what you see in this area doesn’t match OSIP 6in. OSIP 6in is the most up-to-date high-resolution imagery in the area, but Bing and Maxar are more up-to-date.

If you’re referring to way/37511419, that way was originally added in changeset/1785400 based on Yahoo! Aerial Imagery (grainy even at zoom level 17). Your efforts to clean up my early edits are greatly appreciated!

Reverted in changeset/93354848.

Hi, I undid this change in changeset/93343612. It looks like you meant to add a business to the map, but instead you renamed a street to the business name, which makes it impossible to locate. Please add the business at the correct location on the map so that people can find it. Thank you!

Hi, thanks for cleaning up the road geometry in this area. As you do so in Ohio, please refer to the OSIP 1ft and OSIP 6in layers whenever available. The OSIP 1ft layer is not as current as OSIP 6in, but both OSIP layers are more consistently and accurately aligned than other available layers. You can also refer to this table to decide on the right layer for the task at hand: osm.wiki/Ohio#Resources . Thanks for your attention to this detail!

Certainly, there was a bit of whimsy to the city posting this sign when opening the bridge in 1983, but it is serious enough to be mapped in OSM based on what we currently know. I’ll humor you with my best understanding of the situation, though I’m by no means a lawyer, and OSM’s general disclaimer particularly applies in ambiguous cases like this. [1]

First of all, it’s pretty unlikely that someone would be cited or taken to court for merely driving too many beasts of burden across it or allowing them to run rampant. However, local authorities do take people to court for damaging bridges with their vehicles or loads, especially if it involves a historic bridge structure or an egregious violation. In such a case, this sign might be considered as prima facie evidence in favor of a restriction, though there would be mitigating factors.

Strongsville ordinance 434.05 authorizes the city to enforce a speed limit on this bridge, and it doesn’t limit that authority to motorized vehicles. [2] Other ordinances cover wonton disregard for the safety of property when operating a vehicle. The Cuyahoga County board of county commissioners or Cleveland Metroparks may have also issued a relevant ordinance or order.

A defendant might be able to argue that the sign doesn’t conform to the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD), as authorized by the Ohio Revised Code section 4511.11. [3] That alone doesn’t automatically make the sign unenforceable: after all, there are plenty of nonstandard traffic signs all over the state, especially at parks and airports. But a defendant might claim that the sign’s contents and construction are so unusual that the sign appears to be decorative. I’m not familiar enough with case law to know how much weight that argument would carry.

This sign isn’t entirely hypothetical. It’s effectively a speed limit for users of the nearby Bridle Trail and All-Purpose Trail. It also isn’t unique: an identical sign posted on a covered bridge in Illinois [4], and a street in Neschers, France, also has a walking-speed limit for horses. [5]

As for the distinction between driving a horse and allowing it to gallop unfettered, OSM doesn’t seem to have an established way to tag restrictions or exceptions related to who accompanies a person or vehicle. I’ve encountered plenty of conventional signs that can’t be fully tagged for this reason. [6]

Given the ambiguity of the situation, I was inclined to map the sign and its ostensible effect based on the on-the-ground rule and rely on end users to determine the level of risk they’d want to incur by violating the signposted restriction.

[1] osm.wiki/Disclaimer
[2] https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/strongsville/latest/strongsville_oh/0-0-0-32199
[3] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.11
[4] http://geographicallyyours.blogspot.com/2019/07/princeton-illinois-usa.html
[5] way/137321605
[6] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ONdQuzIu5wDqamt8s-esuw