Hi,

Good work here, but I don't think that the crossings you mapped should get footway=sidewalk. Instead, they should probably get footway=crossing, along with crossing=unmarked if there's no markings.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121539979

Hi,

Please only use footway=sidewalk for footways that parallel a road. It looks like part of the way you added is not parallel to a road, so it should not have this tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121540021

These turn restrictions seem to have been added by Amazon mappers who thought that drivers aren't allowed to cross the double yellow line, even when turning into and out of driveways. I checked for each location, and there are no signs restricting motion.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121217713

Hi,

Why did you add these turn restrictions? I checked Bing Streetside, which you specified as a source, but I don't see any signs restricting turns.

No tags were changed in this changeset. Also, why are you deleting detail from boundaries?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121156777

No tags were changed in this changeset.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121156853

You misspelled the name of this place. Also, in this case, it would probably be useful to put the old name in the "old_name" tag. So:

name="Lake County Executive Airport"
old_name="Lost Nation Airport"

I'll make this change.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121157841

Please specify a source for this data.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121158250

Hi, welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contribution!

The edit looks good, but it helps other mappers verify data when you specify a source for the information you add. If you're local to the area, and have some sort of knowledge through that, you can just specify "local knowledge" in the source field when uploading your changeset. Thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120722065

It appears that this is just a house, and not a business that any customer would visit in person. These types of businesses should not be mapped on OSM. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll remove this from the map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120444136

Please use more descriptive changeset comments, and provide your sources.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120867496

I just noticed that this changeset contains a lot more than just that route I was talking about. To be specific, I'm looking at Old NY-356.

Hi,

"Not reported" isn't the best changeset comment. If you're developing for this app, could you take a look at this? Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120385108

Hi,

I'm going to revert the classification change, and I'm going to revert horse=no.

Even for parts of this road that are relatively grade separated, intersections are sprinkled in here and there. Also, lanes are narrower than expected for a motorway, turns are tighter, etc. Most of the road probably doesn't meet motorway criteria for this reason.

horse=no is just a bit obvious. I think any data consumer could assume that this is the case on an expressway in New York. A mapper putting horse=no on a case like this for the reason of "oh, well of course you can't ride a horse on this expressway" isn't much different from a data consumer making the same deduction.

foot=no and bicycle=no I'll leave on, as this is somewhat more likely of a case to have, even if still pretty unlikely for an expressway.

Hi,

I think that this data is better suited for OpenHistoricalMap. OSM is supposed to be for things that currently exist.

I know that you've added other routes like this. Why are you adding them? Is it for Wikipedia? If so, I know that there's another way to create maps for it (has to do with KML I believe), so please look at this when adding map data to Wikipedia pages.

I would like to eventually remove these old routes from OSM, or at least the ones that have no trace left in the real world. For example, something like historic US-66 should remain on the map, since it's currently signed as such. If you're using this data for Wikipedia pages, I'll wait a while so that you can transfer the data.

I appreciate the work that you're putting in, but there are consequences to mapping old features like this. Some maps are rendering these route numbers, which is definitely not good for users.

Thanks,
John

Thanks! Missed these when I updated the classification.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119313171

Thanks for being so responsive to changeset comments! Looks good to me.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119600565

Looks good, just one more thing I forgot: if the trail passes over something (e.g. water or marshy terain), you should also add a layer tag to show that it's elevated off the ground. Generally, anything with a bridge tag also gets a layer tag. Any value over 0 means that it's elevated.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119598789

Changeset looks good, but in the future, for driveways and swimming pools on private property, please add access=private.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119553965

It's been a little while since I've been on this trail. What exactly does this part look like? Does the wood carry the trail over some kind of water? If so, maybe it should be bridge=boardwalk or something similar.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119553865