Hi Jon2698, I noticed you added cycleway:both=lane to this long stretch of CT 68. Are you sure there is a designated bike lane here? I only see a shoulder on the latest Bing imagery...it seems unlikely given the 45mph speed limit. -Andrew

Hmm, the same problem here, I'm finding a few of these around CT. I only see a shoulder on one side and street parking on the other, no bike lane.

Hi Zack, I don't see a bike lane here?

Whoops thanks, missed that one, fixed

bicycle=designated is specifically for roads that are signposted for bicycles (see above wiki link); being a part of a route does not make them designated. You could mark them bicycle=yes I suppose, but that is already implied on highway=residential in the US.
As for the tunnel I already fixed it, I was checking all the tunnels in CT and came across it.

Also, I'm not sure if this was a mistake, but you split the tunnel (way/1089199734) into two halves and I believe connected the middle node to the road above? Generally there shouldn't be any connection between a bridge/tunnel and the intersecting road.

Hi again, I see you added bicycle=designated to six residential roads (for example, way/1089199733). Are these roads really signposted for bicycles (bicycle=designated)? If they are simply bike-legal then the don't need a bicycle tag. I know some of them have the East Coast Greenway tag but I'm not sure that counts as bicycle=designated.

Hi tannerjt, I noticed you put cycleway=lane on Reed St. Are you sure it is a proper bike lane? I noticed on the Norwalk GIS website that it is marked as having sharrows (shared_lane), but perhaps that information is outdated. Thanks.

Alright so there definitely needs to be some cleanup here :) First @jnighan I'm not sure you're supposed to put actual names in the unsigned tag? The wiki page lists "unsigned=name" but I think it means literally the value "name", not [name]. And if you look at taginfo now, it's dominated by the names of Connecticut highways.
Then second, @Jmapper007 clearly name isn't compatible with noname=yes so there has to be some resolution there

Ah whoops, yeah other way around. Still you added the name tag, which is incompatible with the existing noname tag -- I see the other discussion now, I will comment there too

Hi, it looks like you added noname=yes to six ways in the Andover/Columbia/Willimantic area, but they still have a name tag? For example 700683946

Hi, just a note that for most of the tunnel entrances at the Yale residential colleges, you can use tunnel=building_passage, and also they generally shouldn't have layer=-1 because they're on the same layer as the ground:
tunnel=building_passage

Hm yeah, that particular example is definitely borderline. I've added a section to the building_passage discussion page for roofs between buildings. Car washes are also borderline, I've been leaving them as building_passage but arguably they should only have indoor=yes

Hi Zack, I noticed you added layer=-1 to a lot of sidewalks. What's your reasoning there?

Hi CyberMinion, I saw the review_requested=yes tag on the changeset. Looks good generally, but in reference to the "South Windsor Town Land Driveway" you shouldn't construct names as a description (unless that's the official name of the road?). If it doesn't have an official name then just leave the name blank, or you can add it in the description or note field. Learn more here: osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
Thanks!

Hi, welcome to OSM! The change looks good. Let me know if you have any questions. -Andrew

Hi, are you sure the Dibble Edge Road track segment (way/656377732) is private? On Bing Streetside I don't see any no trespassing sides, also it appears like a normal road on Wallingford GIS. Also on the western entrance it almost looks like there are trail blazes on a tree.

Hi Kevin, I noticed you've added name=Cascade and similar to a lot of waterfall nodes in Connecticut. I admire your dedication to tagging waterfalls, but the name tag should really be reserved for the actual name and not labels or descriptions, please see:
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
In this specific case I see you initially named it "Wesley Falls" but then replaced it with "Cascade" -- is the official name Wesley Falls or did you construct it from the name of the road/trail?
Anyway, I found two alternative ways of tagging waterfalls on taginfo. Unfortunately they aren't very popular, but they would allow you to continue tagging waterfalls without using the name tag, and perhaps it's something we could discuss with others and document on the OSM wiki. One option is to replace waterway=waterfall with waterway=cascade. The other option is to continue using waterway=waterfall and use the additional tag waterfall=cascade, which makes more sense to me given cascade is a type of waterfall, and there seem to be many other types as well. Either option would allow you to continue tagging and search for cascades in Connecticut using Overpass. Let me know what you think, but I think the Cascade names should be removed sometime soon. Thanks, -Andrew

I see, thanks. There are a lot of coastline-related issues on the OsmAnd github but nothing really matches this case. I'll open a new issue

Check out note/3244011 when you have a chance. It renders fine in openstreetmap-carto but not OsmAnd. I don't know much about tagging boundaries but it seems like there are two boundaries for New Haven? 270191 and 11065393.