Oops, meant to ask why you were deleting so much landuse.

https://osmcha.org/changesets/118841412

Why are you deleting so much landuse?

See comments on changeset/97404922

Also, destination is probably not being used correctly here. It is supposed to be used on ways that have signage nearby saying where a driver will end up if they choose to follow that way. Shortly after the signage, the destination tag should be dropped.

I'm going to remove this tag, but if there is signage saying McAllen, please add the tag back only where that sign is.

Hi,

There's a couple oddities with the way you're tagging I-2 here. First of all, network=US:I and direction=west should go on the route relation, not the ways in it. This may have been an accident, let me know if so.

The other thing is that ref on ways isn't supposed to contain the direction of travel. It was already fine as it was: `ref=I 2;US 83`.

I agree, name=I-95 would also be wrong. But if the feature doesn't have an actual name, and is instead mainly referred to by its ref, it shouldn't have a name at all. official_name might have been originally created for that, but it is also used for this purpose in quite a number of places.

I'll join the CT discord if you give me the link, but you should also join the OSM US Discord and/or Slack if you're not in them already.

No, this is not signed. Where did you get this information?

Still waiting on a reply here. I think this tagging is not correct. Would anyone refer to this road by this name in common conversation? Or would they just say I-95?

Hi,

Please refer to the wiki when using new tags. For this one (barrier=cable_barrier), here's the wiki page: barrier=cable_barrier

This page says to draw a way _along the barrier location_. You put the tag on NY-17 instead, which is not correct.

I'm going to remove the tag from the road, and if there is indeed a barrier here, please draw a NEW line where it is, and put this tag on it.

Thanks,
John

Hi,

Welcome to OSM! There's a couple things I'd like to point out here.

First of all, it looks like you didn't remove the node after mapping out the pool as an area. Please do so when doing tasks like this.

Second, please don't put things like "pool" in the name tag. It looks like your editor warned you about this too, and you must have clicked to ignore the warning. Please give careful consideration to any warnings shown to you, as it will help reduce issues with the data you produce.

Specifically, "pool" would be an example of a descriptive name. Essentially, you're describing the element with your own words. This is not really useful to anyone; the fact that it's a pool is already represented in the other tags. If you want to know whether something in OSM should have a name, consider how you'd mention it to someone in conversation. Would you say "that bridge by the park"? If so, don't put a name on it. Or, would you say "the George Washington Bridge"? In this case, you would put a name on it.

Hopefully my examples help you understand the rules for this, but please let me know if you still have questions about this or anything else in OSM.

Hi,

I appreciate your effort in this changeset, but I had a few questions about it, since I'm not a Rochester native.

First of all, I know that the Inner Loop is signed as such and referred to as that name by locals. However, why did you add ref=IL? Are you just adding an initialism? Is this signed anywhere or generally recognized by locals? If not, we're trying to eliminate this usage of ref around the state and beyond. Please tell me what your motivation was for adding this tag, though.

Also, it looks like you added `name=Outer Loop` to, well, the outer loop. It doesn't look like you added `ref=OL`, presumably since the members of the outer loop already have refs. The few times I've been through the area, I don't recall seeing signage saying outer loop as much as the inner loop. Is it the obvious name to the average local?

And again, I'd like to invite you to the OSMUS Slack. With all of the contributions you've been making in New York, I think we'd all benefit from having you in the conversation. If you join, please join the #local-newyorkstate channel and say hi. You can join at: https://slack.openstreetmap.us

I hope to see you there!

Hi,

First of all, I downgraded part of it a while ago, since trunks no longer mean expressways.

Also, please do not put things like "NY 263 S / Buffalo" in the name tag; filling out destination and destination:ref like you did is all you need to do.

Hi,

Please review the values for the surface tag. It looks like you used surface=concrete for places with just lighter colored asphalt.

Please don't put multiple names (separated by a semicolon) in the name tag.

Looks like you somehow removed the part of the Hutchinson River Parkway that you were working on from the route relation. I'll go ahead and fix it

Hi,

I noticed that you mapped a connection between the two directions of CR-97 (Nicolls Road). Please don't tag these as highway=trunk_link; this tag implies that anyone can drive across it. Instead, please use at least highway=service along with access=no for these types of things.

Hi,

Thanks again for using NYSDOP imagery in these areas. Your work looks very good.

Your imagery_used tag on the changeset is set correctly, which is good. Your changeset comment is still on Bing though.

Thanks for your work!

Hi,

For names like this, it is preferred to put them in the official_name tag, rather than the name tag. Please move the name to this tag, if you could.

Is this path signed as "Side Path", or did you choose this name to describe it? If it's the latter, please don't do that. If it is actually signed as "Side Path", then the name tag can remain as such.