Also, Welcome to OpenStreetMap :)

Thanks for the quick reply.

From the ASH Master Plan Report, "The new ASH
campus will focus on engaging the community that surrounds it by
creating accessible public spaces and street design that includes
generous tree-lined sidewalks in order to encourage engagement
with residential neighborhood."

See https://www.ashredesign.org/downloads-2023

Do you want to reach out to their community engagement team and find out for sure current status? They can be reached at 512-419-2330.

Can you kindly provide a source for this change? I'm not sure if this is true any longer, at least not for entire area.

This was definitely at wrong location beforehand so kudos for the update.

Thanks for updating this. This has been on my radar due to the previous construction tag orphaning off this neighborhood. I do believe there is still construction happening here though but I don't have the benefit of lyft proprietary imagery and I haven't been by here personally. See https://www.austintexas.gov/news/road-closures-mearns-meadow-blvd-construction-reduce-flooding-along-little-walnut-creek which suggests that phase 1 (Mearns meadow boulevard from Rutland to Parkfield) just begun August 26 2023 and will run until spring 2024. I suspect there is some form of access still but maybe only one way and for local traffic? Just leaving as is may be best bet either way but wanted to make sure you were aware of news release from the city. Cheers.

Do not mark a ford when a waterway travels under the roadway via culvert. Let me know if you need assistance on how to do that. Please kindly delete all these fords (some of them are in other changesets). Thanks.

Just stumbled upon 6582 myself and came to share but you've already beat me to the punch. Kudos.

Now, based on a review of street side imagery, aerial imagery, and USGS 3DEPElevation multidirectional hill shade visualization, I don't believe there is a rolled curb here. I believe it is a a painted red line. :-) Or am I misunderstanding what you're intending to tag here?

Hello Minh Nguyen. I noticed you tagged barrier=kerb + kerb=rolled. This has caused OSRM to no longer route on these roads. It seems to be a bug. Would you be willing to follow up with OSRM team?

Hi Technogeek, Thank you for your contributions.

Please do not map a parking lot (amenity=parking) for street side parking. Instead, use street side parking (amenity=parking + parking=street_side), parking lane (amenity=parking + parking=lane), or tag the existence of parking on the section of the way where it exists (parking:{left,right,both})=*.

Please do not map multiple parking lots (amenity=parking) for what is actually a single parking lot. For example, for the single parking lot for the church on Lexington Road you created six separate polygons for each continuous block of parking spaces. I appreciate you wanting to provide additional level of detail. In order to do that properly, you'll want to map a single parking lot and *then* map parking spaces within it (amenity=parking_space). Splitting the parking into multiple polygons can lead to data redundancy. If someone were trying to query data related to parking facilities, they might end up with inflated counts or misleading statistics; representation should align with real-world semantics. From a rendering perspective, the cluster of 'P' symbols this causes in close proximity is visually cluttering and might mislead users into thinking there are multiple distinct parking areas, rather than one cohesive parking lot.

You can find additional resources on mapping parking at osm.wiki/Parking and for street side parking specifically see osm.wiki/Street_parking

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you disagree. Feel free to catch me on OSM US Slack as well.

Thanks again for all your hard work.

I've noticed you adding service=driveway to a number of service roads but from what I've seen it appears most uses are inconsistent with the typical established norm so I'd like to discuss with you.

From my perspective, the service=driveway tag should be used for private or restricted-access roads that lead to a single facility, residence, or small group of buildings. It should almost always be a terminal destination with only one end connected to road network.

Paths in or around a parking lot (amenity=parking) are tagged with highway=service without service=*, connecting multiple parking aisles (service=parking_aisle) when applicable.

Can you help me understand this change? The separation of the roadway begins at the intersection.

Also, I think there is some additional changes perhaps needed to lane configuration at the RR 2222 and RR 620 intersection north of the bypass intersection. I'll take a closer look.

Also, tangent but noticed that it seems like parts of RR 620 keep getting recreated. It looks like a bunch of additional useful tags were lost in changeset #139193387 by different editor. Should we look to restore the history perhaps or at least the tags?

Cheers!

Thank you!

Hey there! Looks like your recent changeset comment said "amend tags," but the changeset itself didn't actually update any tags. If you're using JOSM, there's a chance the comment was auto-filled from a previous edit. You can turn off this auto-fill feature by checking out these instructions: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Concepts/Changeset#Uploadcommentandotherchangesettags

For tips on writing better changeset comments, take a look at this wiki page: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping!

There appears to be a few problems in this changeset:

1. Way #15116037 for Amanda Circle was deleted, looks like middle segment of this road was deleted recreating two end segments with no change in geometry. Imagery suggests road still exists in entirety though it possibly should be classified as a land access road.

2. There are a number of other driveways and land access roads that were deleted entirely that didn't quite have the geometry accurate but based on imagery likely still exists at least in part: 15094711, 15094951, 15095309, 15096147, 15097295, 15101351, and 15102108.

Great work!

Hello thebestmapper90210,

I noticed your recent edit where the "amenity=school" tag was removed. This is the second time this change has been made, and it was previously reverted by another community member.

It's essential to understand that the removal of the "amenity=school" tag may lead to inaccurate information on the map. If you have a specific reason for this removal, please provide detailed justification or evidence so the community can understand the rationale behind your edit.

If you are uncertain about the tagging process or require further clarification, you can consult the OpenStreetMap Wiki or engage with the community in the discussion forums or via Slack.

Please ensure that future edits align with established mapping practices and community guidelines. Your contributions are valuable, and we encourage you to continue participating in the OpenStreetMap project.

Hi Artem, Thank you for the reply.

The oneway tag here has been reverted back and forth four to five times now. I see that lyft has had to come back to fix it more than once. I think there may be automated QA tools that are flagging it and causing drive by contributors to change it back to oneway.

I will solicit additional feedback from community on proposed change to ensure it is the optimal approach and best way to map this intersection. I’ll also see if I can confirm my suspicion about QA tool and if this needs to be raised with the maintainer of said tool.

If the proposed solution changes and it appears that it might benefit from further solicitation of input from Lyft, I’ll follow up with another comment on this changeset.

Best regards. :)

Hi Polina. Great to make your introduction. The wiki suggests two ways to map. The first is "put a node traffic_calming=island node on the road (especially if it's a small island),", like the example you provided, and the second is between the two lanes of a carriageway. Either method is equally acceptable though I think the first would be more beneficial here.

Hi Cameron Ford. Thank you for helping to keep this area updated as it undergoes heavy construction.

1. Can you confirm the sources you are using for the updates you are making since the imagery is out of date? Have you been out to survey in person recently by chance? If not, I'm happy to do so if that will be helpful.

2. I noticed you deleted the part of West William Cannon Drive north of 290 that is is being replaced. They should actually remain, with lifecycle tag updates as appropriate, until demolished (and probably until they don't show up on the default imagery for this area). See osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

3. It appears that you are sometimes deleting and recreating ways. Please do avoid this as much as possible to preserve history (I've noticed this in a number of changesets over time so let me know if you need me to provide some specific examples). See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

4. Relatedly, it appears that some routes need to be fixed now. I'm happy to help review and fix them with you.

If I've misunderstood anything or got anything above incorrect, please let me know.

FYI I'm usually available on OSM US Slack if you'd like to connect there.

Kudos again.

I see from history this intersection has bounced back and forth a few times in how it is being tagged. However it doesn't seem like we need or benefit to split the ways here in the first place. The island can just be mapped using a node on the way.

What do you think?