crossing=uncontrolled is the correct tagging (that’s what is in the iD tagging schema) please stop changing tagging to crossing=marked.

Can you please stop changing crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked, these crossings were tagged as uncontrolled on purpose so please stop moving them back to the old tagging schema.

Happy mapping
Udar

Question:
I was wondering why you removed this parking lot, it is still on the latest imagery.

Happy mapping
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149848098

Small note here, seamark:type=* is intended for features todo with boats and other things that navigate on water. Since this was added on land features not close enough to water this is incorrect. The same applies to waterway=lock_gate since it to is for water based features and from what I can tell must be placed on something like a canal, river or other waterway. If you want to indicate that there’s a locked gate somewhere you can add a gate and add the tag of locked=yes.

Happy mapping
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149847522

noexit=yes only goes on the end of a way so placing it here would be wrong. noexit represents a spot were a road that may be close to other ways does no connect to those ways, the road it’s on doesn’t have an exit.

Happy mapping
Udar
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149846120

entrance=* only goes on the intersection of a building and a road or footpath of some sort, it represents the spot you enter a building at. It doesn’t go on a road like this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149846071

entrance=* only goes on the intersection of a building and a road or footpath of some sort, it represents the spot you enter a building at. It doesn’t go on a road like this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149846018

Since all that parking is still on the latest imagery can you please respond as to why you removed all of them?

Wow, I really typoed that, I meant:
Small fix I forgot in previous commit.

Thanks for the prompt response, I have split the atm into two in commit 149370494 . Again sorry for commenting here if it was bother.
Happy mapping
Udar

Sorry if I’m being a bother here, but I was wondering if Reb has fixed the tagging issue they introduced here.

I am wondering because this user added an atm that is apparently for both Wells Fargo and Bank of America at MIA which I doubt since I haven’t seen any atms share banks like that before. I left a comment asking why they did so 2 months ago and haven’t heard back from them. So I am wondering if this user has a pattern of making commits with tagging issues like that and I should split the node into 2 POI’s or if I should keep it.

Again sorry if I’m being a bother here.

Happy mapping,
Udar

Can you please respond, I would like to know if the node needs to split into two separate nodes or if other changes need to be made.

A few questions here, first of all and most importantly, why did you delete all those ways, they are all parking aisles and the service roads connecting those parking aisles together, all of these are still on the latest imagery “Miami-Dade County Orthoimagery (Latest)” so shouldn’t have been deleted. Second of all, why did you remove the following tags from the gondola station:
aerialway=station
public_transport=station
when on the latest imagery the station is still there along with the gondola so that tagging seems to be correct.

sorry if I'm being annoying here, but its been two months since the commit so its likely that some of the ways that were still under construction when this commit was made aren't any longer. So can you please check again if the following ways and all the under construction along with all other ways they are attached to that have construction tagging:
way/1149564737
way/1149564718
way/1149564715

thank you so much in advance,
Udar.

What do you mean by “redesign”, if you mean align to latest imagery the I see no problem with that. Again "abandoned" is incorrect here since nothing has been abandoned, maybe was: but not abandoned because abandoned implies that some part of the old structure remains and is no longer being worked on. These are likely to be worked on in the future as in removed since it’s in an active construction zone so abandoned is incorrect here. Since the road is closed and in an active construction zone I feel it’s best tagged as construction but if that tagging sits so badly with you it’s better removed altogether.

And there is still the issue of this being a project between fdot and mdx so since I am it sure that everything mdx does is public domain I am not sure that the website used as a source is compliant with OSMs license and thus might not be able to be used as a source.

Again if a bit of road is marked as under construction it is implied that it is closed and only construction workers are allowed in there so construction tagging implies the road is closed.

as mentioned in my comment above the monorail (what was built on top of the old FEC alignment) has already been mapped to its current alignment. the way you removed abandoned tagging from is there for historical reasons and is not meant to represent the current alignment of the monorail.

changeset/148664466

Why’d you remove the link
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148317448

My previous comment had grammar issues and could have been hard to read so I’m reposting it with better grammar as to have a better explanation of my thoughts.
Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new pedestrian area in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) the tagging added would be area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change. Though if you absolutely must, remove the highway:area=pedestrian and change it to area=yes.
Happy mapping

Again if you don’t want the ramp to be mapped with construction then remove it, “abandoned” is incorrect for that way.

While I am aware of Microdecisions, inc. v. Skinner makes anything made by the state of Florida public domain I am not sure if that makes this public domain due to the fact that if you look at the footer it’s a project in conjunction with MDX (Miami Dade Expressway Authority) which is am not certain that the court ruling applies to so while FDOT cannot claim copyright over that website MDX might. That’s why even though I’ve been watching that website for over a year and a half now I haven’t used it as a source. There is also the fact that allot of the videos are really on YouTube which further complicates things, I am not certain that law applies to YouTube videos made by Fl.

As for the (now 2) “abandoned” way, it is not, it is either going to be incorporated into some other part of the highway or a highway ramp or be razed and covered in grass. I have seen many highway construction projects here in Miami dade county (I’ve been living here since 2005) over the years and not once have they left a temporary highway_link there once construction finished, they always end up demolished if they haven’t been incorporated into the wider highway structure. That’s why it should be
left as construction or removed altogether. If you want to map these for historical reasons map them on OHM. As a note, from my understanding when something is under construction it is by definition closed, so mapping the way as under construction would achieve that perfectly.

Happy mapping
Udar