Sorry forgot to put in the above that the above would be for Miami dade county since I don’t know the wishes of others in other localities.

If it sais marked (at least if Rapid does things the same as iD) then that means that the tag being used is crossing=uncontrolled. What I am asking is that on the already mapped crossings that the “ambiguous_crossing” related “issues” not be “fixed” because they aren’t fixes because those tags are implied. This is because the difference between crossing=uncontrolled/unmarked and crossings=traffic_signals is whether or not crossing:signals are present; so is thus implied. It’s ok if it’s added by default, just look at the tags in thee tag edit in the bottom and if the tags have crossing=uncontrolled crossing=unmarked or crossing=traffic_signals you not “fix” the “ambiguous_crossing” related “issues”.

crossing:signals=yes is implied on crossing= traffic_signals so please stop adding it on existing ways, Rapid is incorrect for calling it an issue, so don’t “fix” these in Miami dade county please. I have made this request multiple times.

Happy mapping,
Udar

crossing:signals=no is implied on crossing=uncontrolled so please stop adding it on existing ways, Rapid is incorrect for calling it an issue, so don’t “fix” these in Miami dade county please. I have made this request multiple times.

Happy mapping,
Udar

crossing:signals=no is implied on crossing=uncontrolled so please stop adding it on existing ways, Rapid is incorrect for calling it an issue, so don’t “fix” these in Miami dade county please. I have made this request multiple times.

Happy mapping,
Udar

All of the commits from this user seem to SEO spam and the features added don’t seem to have much information in them and themselves seem to be SEO stuff also.

How do you convert a road to a sidewalk.

Next time you delete a building with address tags (addr:*)=* please first extract those tags into a separate freestanding node so that that information isn’t lost since the address still exists the building just doesn’t.

Why remove the roads under construction

whats the source for this?

Several nodes like 10770256469 were converted from uncontrolled to marked. As to why uncontrolled is preferable to marked it is simple, it seems to be the community consensus, I say this because the Id tagging schema has “marked crossing” tagged with crossing=uncontrolled.

I also personally prefer if it because wether or not a crossing is marked or unmarked is denoted by crossing:markings so uncontrolled is preferable because it lowers duplication in tagging meaning and keeps wether or not a crossing is signalized to uncontrolled vs traffic_signals since that is the difference between the two.

Happy mapping,
Udar

The tiger road names are the same (or at least when they were imported) and had to be expanded afterwards. That’s why I say it’s convention to have to full name (street instead of st for example). I understand what happened I just left the comment as a note for future reference.

Happy mapping,
Udar

Please stop converting crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked.

crossing:signals=no is implied on crossing=uncontrolled and thus shouldn’t be added, please stop adding these. The fact that it is uncontrolled means that it doesn’t have crossing signals.

The names of the stations shouldn’t use the shortenings, aka sw for southwest and st for street they should be using the longer names, that just convention in the community.

Somehow this makes the mulipolygon area the Miami river stop rendering, no idea why.

Then don’t “fix” those errors since they are incorrect.

crossing:signals=no is implied on crossing=uncontrolled, please stop adding these tags.

Happy mapping
Udar

Next time please don’t convert crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked since uncontrolled is the default for marked crossings.

Happy mapping
Udar

Next time please don’t convert crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked since uncontrolled is the default for marked crossings.

Happy mapping
Udar