I think I figured it out. It should be fixed in 128621448.

ugh. That was definitely unintentional. Would you happen to know how to revert the plfd boundary only without reverting the whole changeset? I've been playing with the josm reverter which appears to move some of the boundary's points that I screwed up back where they belong, but some areas still look awfully suspicious (e.g. boundary cutting right through the middle of buildings just east of North Plainfield Crossings).

What's the source for Adams Park being operated by the Wheaton Park District?
The district doesn't list it on its website; and the recent park improvement project appears to have been carried out by the city, not the park district. Was Wheaton Park District actually verified, or is this guesswork?

Same question on the township park grounds just across the street. Are either of those locations truly operated by the PD?

What's the source for Meyer Park being operated by the Bolingbrook Park District? The district doesn't list it on its website.

Hey there - can you give a little more background as to what the reason for adding these curves is where the dual carriageway transitions into a two way road? This looks a bit odd to me (after all, there's no curve in reality), and I haven't seen anything mapped like this around here (or anywhere, for that matter). Wondering if there's a specific problem you're trying to solve this way?

Thanks,

> Just letting the user know they are about to make one would go a LONG way to solving the problem.
Precisely. If the individuals getting super offended by huge change sets just used half the time they use to flame beginners who don't know any better (or people who accidentally uploaded a huge change set) to push for solutions within the editors, we'd probably be much further along.
I had pitched a similar idea in another one of these flame wars almost a year ago. Surprisingly enough (or not), none of the individuals who tend to complain about huge change sets loudly and frequently (and, often on the borderline of just being rude) appeared to have any interest in pushing for any of that in any editor whatsoever. Go figure.
It just doesn't look like most the complainers actually care too much for a solution, but more like they're looking for a place to vent (troll?).

@SekeRob - curious about your wiki-edit on this matter - would you mind adding a sentence or two on how one would achieve that in JOSM?

I second what b-jazz says.

To me, the only thing more annoying than world-spanning edits messing with review filters, is world-spanning edits with dozens of comments that make it look like there's some weird-ass controversy going on, when all it really is is just the same (handful of people's) mimimi over and over and over again...

Hi Lizaveta,

Thanks so much for getting back to me on this.
You're bringing up an interesting point. I was only aware of the key:lanes wiki page and hadn't realized there's conflicting information on the other one.
I agree with your conclusion that the two contradict, and that given the information that's out there, one could make an argument for either being right (or wrong).

Personally, I would argue that splitting the way as soon as the turn lane begins (the approach described on the key:lanes wiki page) feels more appropriate for practicality reasons:
If a router wants to produce accurate instructions (think "use the left lane to turn into xyz road at the next traffic light"), it would have to know where that turn lane begins.
At least here in Illinois, the rules of the road do not explicitly forbid crossing solid white lines, but it is discouraged*. I believe it is illegal to cross solid white lines in at least some other states (in which case splitting at the point of the turn lane reaching full width would be the precise spot when moving to that lane becomes illegal...).
For a router to provide accurate instructions, it would therefore have to "guess" where the turn lanes starts.
The problem with that is that turn lane length can vary significantly (even turn lanes at the same intersection can have significantly different lengths), so the estimate is almost always gonna be wrong.

That being said, given the absence of consistent rules in the wiki, your opinion here is as good as mine (or anybody else's).
Is there a particular reason why you'd prefer splitting the way once the turn lane reaches full width? I'm not seing a benefit myself (rather the opposite, see above), but I'm curious to hear your perspective.

Thank you and have a great day,

* IL rules of the road, page 79 (page number) / 87 (pdf page): "Solid white lines separate lanes of traffic moving in the same direction Crossing a solid white line requires special care and is discouraged."
https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a112.pdf

Hey there - can you explain what's going on here? Why are you breaking up the turn lanes and retagging part of them as if they didn't exist (not just in this changeset alone)? The turn lanes starts(!) way earlier, it's not just the couple of feet separated by a solid line immediately before the intersection ...

Hey there - saw your contributions over the last couple of days, great work!

I have one request though - in situations like the shelter in Hobson West, could you include in your change set comment what you based your edit on? Something like "6/24/2022 survey" (if you went there) or "local knowledge" (if you know it exists but didn't recently verify on site) is usually sufficient.

Something that isn't visible on publicly available imagery (yet) often poses the question "Did this exist but doesn't anymore; or is the imagery outdated?", in which case having a comment like this is incredibly useful for figuring out what's going on.

Thank you!

fyi - St. Charles appears to be another example - connected to ComED transmission lines, but owning and operating its own distribution network:
https://www.stcharlesil.gov/departments/public-works/electric

Comed - I believe that to be true for the transmission network; but not for all distribution networks in Chicagoland. It is certainly not true for the distribution network in the City of Naperville*. Again, please do not map based on unverified guesses alone.

* https://www.naperville.il.us/services/electric-utility/your-electric-service/

You sure about the Raymond substation being operated by ComED? Sounds counterintuitive given the City of Naperville operates its own electric utility; and there's a giant city logo on the facade of the bldg. Any source for this actually being ComED?

Also, what's the background of tagging Duly sites as not:operator:wikidata = Q43896861 ?

This isn't a DuPage issue. Please verify your information. If you haven't been there, and can't verify on an aerial or using *any* other source either, then please don't map (or tag) that particular feature - it's pure guesswork at that point, just shy of vandalism.
Finding features that are mistagged with formally valid, but factually incorrect values is much harder than finding stuff that's missing legitimate tags altogether.

Do you recall other cases where you tagged stuff based on guesses? These may make sense to double check (or just revert) too.

Thanks!

On an unrelated note, I fixed about a hundred instances of buildings tagged with building=ret (instead of building=retail), all authored by you. Could you check if maybe a preset you're using is a broken somehow? Thanks!

Hello - what is the source for Continental Park in Warrenville being operated by the park district? The district doesn't list it on its website; and the signage at the park's entrance looks different from the Warrenville Park District operated parks.

Also, a 2018 bike rack inventory* published by the city lists this as a _private_ park. Please explain.

Thank you,

* https://www.warrenville.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/8320/BikeRackinv2018?bidId=

oh this is cool. Can you help me understand what the licensing situation looks like? Are these open data?

Oops. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fixed in 121070914.
On a side note - you wouldn't happen to have access to a relatively recent aerial of the area where 126 crosses 71, would you? I was adding lane and sidewalk tagging on 126, but the most recent imagery I could find is Bing, and the intersection was under construction when the image was taken (mid 2020)....

Hello,
please do not rename the route master relations. Quoting the wiki on the name tag for bus route masters:
'As is true with the individual bus relations, this value should not be the "official" name of the bus route.
Use the following format: "Bus <ref>". '
I'm gonna revert these.

osm.wiki/Buses

Thanks!