Hey there jmb70. Thanks for your improvements. I wanted to point out a small error that you can hopefully avoid in the future. When you were drawing cul-de-sacs, you were drawing the way as A-B-C-D-C, where you would double back to a previous point to end the way. (At least I think this might be you. Apologies if I'm not reading the history right.) When you end a way, you can just click the end node twice instead. If you don't you create this odd topology error where a road doubles back on itself. Thanks.

Oh, and I'm cleaning this up where I find them, so no need for you to find and correct these. I'm just hoping you can avoid this in the future.

Hello AMathews, thanks for your contributions to OSM. I couple of comments for you on this changeset. If is best practice to keep changesets limited to a small area and not include changes from two vastly different parts of the world. I'd be happy to explain way in more detail if you're interested. A second comment is that most editors these days have a way to "square" a building, so houses like way/912828031 will look much better if they are all at 90 degree angles.

Thanks.

I believe the Mapbox and Bing images are actually the latest in this case. Have a look and let me know if you still disagree.

Does way/910746394 really go through a building?

Is there a reason that two natural=water areas are next to each other? Shouldn't they be combined into a single area? way/911646037 for example.

Another example of an oddly rotated building: way/901820851

How do ways like 897192856 get rotated and not match the satellite imagery?

Hi Nate,

Can you take another look at way/9443888. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, so I hesitate trying to correct it. Maybe you have a better idea with a second look. Thanks.

Hello Taha,

It looks like you've given a name to way/735376301, but that name (according to Google translate) looks to be a description rather than the official city-blessed name for the road. Can you remove the description/name from it?

Thanks.

Something happened with way/844912860 recently, but I'm not sure how it should look. Maybe you could help fix it up? Thanks.

Hey there Brody. Thanks for contributing to OSM. Your changes are appreciated by those of us in the community and the many others that won't even realize that work people like you have put in.

I wanted to correct a mapping thing that I've seen you do in a couple of places though so that the mistake doesn't continue. If you look at a cul-de-sac (way/885699737 for instance) there is only one cul-de-sac there and you have made each driveway connecting to that cul-de-sac it's own cul-de-sac, which is incorrect. There should only be one cul-de-sac node at the center. And the road shouldn't draw a loop around it since there isn't anything physically on the ground that would force that path. The way it was originally drawn was correct (though I'm not sure the focal node was actually labelled a cul-de-sac as it should be).

Would you like to clean this up yourself or leave others like myself to do it for you? I'm happy either way.

Hi Brian,
Is there a reason way/867908019 circles 3 or 4 times? I'm going to clean that up. Hope that doesn't break what you were intending.

Hello Stayton. I have cleaned up the multi-polygon that defines the boundary for the city in changeset changeset/95709857. Could you please have a look and make sure if it still defines things correctly. As I read your additions (thanks for the additions BTW!) it looks like there are two non-city sections in town. If that is correct then I have defined the polygon to exclude those areas by labeling them as "inner". Let me know and I'll help in fixing things if needed.

Hope you are well and avoided the fires this summer.

Hello drsgis. Are these being drawn by hand or imported? There are a couple of problems. The first is that none of the buildings are very "square", meaning that what should probably be a 90 degree angle often isn't. I don't have the latest satellite imagery, but history would show this to be rare in construction. The second problem is that many of the ways contain duplicate nodes, meaning that there are two consecutive nodes that have the same exact lat/lon data, which is undesirable. It might be that ArcGIS is buggy in which case I'd like to follow up with them, or it could be that you're importing data that has duplicates and you should clean up your data before you import (assuming you have more imports to do in the future, that is).

Credit really goes to GoColeGo. I just made a minor edit.

Hi Raistlfiren, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. It looks like your GPX file had some anomalies in it that led to some nodes being far away from their actual location. Maybe your GPS was on the fritz that day?

You should also note that the Lower Trails way shouldn't double back on itself when mapping because it isn't topologically correct. There isn't a separate path, it is just reusing the same path, therefore you should only draw the trail once in that area.

Let me know if you want help in fixing either of these problems.

See highway=construction for what I think might be the appropriate tag. If there is zero visible work being done yet, look at the proposed key (proposed=*) instead.

You might want to read the page osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer as well.

These are just my thoughts. Feel free to discuss further. There is also the tagging mailing list or the #tagging channel on Slack if you want to chat with others that have more knowledge than I on the topic.

Hello gadoidé and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see that you have made a bunch of changes in the area, but you have described the set of changes as simply "Hawaii". Can you be a little more descriptive in the future so others looking at your change can understand the intent. For example I found way/865152118 was created, but I can't tell if it was part of the house/building, or a path around the building. We shouldn't have paths drawn out with no information about the purpose of them. If you need any guidance, please let me know.

Hi Jón, can you elaborate on what you mean by "(gone)"? Have the trails been bulldozed over and no longer exist, or are they still there but closed to the public? There are more appropriate tags to use than changing the name to append "gone". (If they truly no longer exist, let me know and I'll help you discover the correct tags. Thanks.)

It looks like way/878064961 was listed as a "building" but it seems like it might have been meant to be something else. Would you like to have a look?