Hi Truck-thin, I've reverted the demolished railway sections added in this changeset here: changeset/176072502

Former rail beds can be mapped in OSM where they are still visible features of the modern landscape, but where new construction other landscape modification has happened this data is out of scope for OSM. See: osm.wiki/Demolished_railways

Hi. Yes although in theory a data consumer could hopefully obtain the street name for a sidewalk from the nearest highway, so far they have not done so. As a result there is a movement to add `name`=* to sidewalks. `street:name`=* is an alternative to this emerging practice that is more semantically accurate. The name applies to the whole street, not just the sidewalk.

street:name=*

Several recent forum topics: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/should-sidewalks-and-crossings-be-unnamed/136661
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-problem-is-this-named-sidewalk-creating/136889

Hi, thanks for your contributions. It looks like you accidentally dragged a node off a river area here and it created a weird spike of water encroaching on the neighborhood 😀. Just a heads up to be careful of that. I've fixed it here:
changeset/173416967

Hi matthewfecica, I have to agree with ZLima12 here. A quick look at the Cranberry Lake Preserve web page makes it quite clear this is a leisure=nature_reserve and not a leisure=park. Please read and understand the wiki pages for these tags before making any more changes like this. This preserve should be reverted to leisure=nature_reserve and I'm guessing the others you've changed to leisure=park should be as well.

https://parks.westchestergov.com/cranberry-lake
leisure=nature_reserve
leisure=park

Hi Aleksandar, it looks like starting in this changeset, and then in a series of others following, you removed `natural=coastline` from a lot of ways and then added it to others going through open water. This moved the location of the coastline significantly and halted global coastline processing. It looks like these changes may need to all be reverted to resolve this. This is currently being discussed on the forum:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/130749

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/130412

Revert changeset here: changeset/164055987

Hi Truck-thin,
I've reverted the classification changes to Routes 127 and 289 from this changeset because they did not align with the Vermont highway classification guidelines. Feel free to reach out if you'd like to discuss.

osm.wiki/Vermont#Highway_classification_in_the_general-purpose_road_network

osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Aaand of course I was accidentally logged into my import account. The above message is from me.

Hi Udar,
Just popping in to say that crossing:signals= is a perfectly valid in-use tag. It's fine if you think it's redundant, but many other mappers don't so please don't delete it. Personally, I always tag both crossing:markings= and crossing:signals= while often omitting crossing= because the values of that tag are interpreted inconsistently.

Hi again edops, yes please slow down and engage in conversation with the rest of us. If you don't want to use slack you can also participate in this forum thread which you have already been invited to via changeset comment and private message from me.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/111201

I applaud your enthusiasm for place classification, but other mappers are not taking kindly to some of your edits.
You do need to discuss such major changes with other mappers in the local community. If we do not hear back from you we will be forced to get the Data Working Group involved.

osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group

Hi edops,

This and other changesets have broadly reclassified settlement place names across Vermont in a manner that is inconsistent with previous place classification discussions among Vermont mappers and generally does not align with the accepted meanings of these tags. As such, I've reverted these changes and invite you to discuss with other local mappers on the forum before making further place name classification changes.

Forum topic: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/111201

Revert changeset: changeset/149395884

Hi edops,

This and other changesets have broadly reclassified settlement place names across Vermont in a manner that is inconsistent with previous place classification discussions among Vermont mappers and generally does not align with the accepted meanings of these tags. As such, I've reverted these changes and invite you to discuss with other local mappers on the forum before making further place name classification changes.

Forum topic: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/111201

Revert changeset: changeset/149395884

Hi edops,

This and other changesets have broadly reclassified settlement place names across Vermont in a manner that is inconsistent with previous place classification discussions among Vermont mappers and generally does not align with the accepted meanings of these tags. As such, I've reverted these changes and invite you to discuss with other local mappers on the forum before making further place name classification changes.

Forum topic: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/111201

Revert changeset: changeset/149395884

Forum discussion about this here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/trails-use-name-and-or-hiking-route/110106

I've gone ahead and reverted the address based name removals for now:
changeset/147432472
changeset/147432411

I think the question of whether these addresses are truly building names is an interesting one, and I may start a forum topic seeking other viewpoints. It seems to me that for the most notable and well known of these buildings it probably does make sense that the name is the address. For less notable ones I'm not so sure.

I've also just realized that the building at 479 Main Street has two addresses: 475 and 479.
https://www.uvm.edu/~hp206/2011/sites/17.html
The sign reads "475-479 Main Street". Would people refer to the building using both numbers like that?

Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't sure about doing this edit, thinking something like that might be the case. The reason I ultimately did go ahead with it is because I noticed a signage difference while driving by these buildings. Named building signs have the name in all caps and the address in proper case on the line below like this:

POMEROY HALL
489 Main Street

Signs for address only buildings use the same proper case as other addresses, and they don't duplicate the address in the all caps name style. For example like this:

481 Main Street

Not like this:

481 MAIN STREET
481 Main Street

These two examples can both be seen here on Google street view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/mRSiDEra4z3zQTAJA

To me, this seems to indicate that some signs show a name and an address, while others showed just an address. So OSM tagging could match that. However, your experience contradicts that with these addresses seeming to be treated as names among the UVM community. I wonder if this really makes the address the name of such a building, or if people just use the address in lieu of a name? On the other hand I am aware of cases where an address is definitively used as a name. For example this restaurant in Jeffersonville: https://158main.com/

If you're confident that these buildings really are named by their address (and not just referred to as such for lack of a name), I'm happy to restore the name tags.

Oh, I see. This must be the gas turbine Burlington Electric uses "as a peaking unit and for emergencies". It generated 0.1% of Burlington's electricity in 2022
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/our-energy/
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/our-energy-portfolio/

I've passed by this building many times and never would have known it was a generating station. I guess that's because it isn't running most of the time. I'm not sure this really qualifies as a power plant to be honest, but I don't see a more fitting tag. Regardless, the building tag should certainly get re-added since it is still a building.

Hello. Why did you change this building to an oil power plant? I'm quite sure it's never been one in the nearly 20 years I've lived in the area. Is there some news I'm unaware of?

Hey Cabot's. This is a common misunderstanding because the tag access=private is supposed to have a more specific meaning than common meaning of the word "private" (what you describe above). More details here: access=private#Clarification_of_the_term_%E2%80%9Cprivate%E2%80%9D

This is indeed a private road as indicated by the PVT on the sign. However all this means legally is that the road is maintained by the property owners rather than the town. It doesn't carry the same weight as a sign reading "no trespassing", "residents only", or similar would. Such a sign means that access is preemptively restricted and definitely indicates `access=private`. This road lacks an access restricting sign, but we still call it a "private road" and people generally do not go down private roads like this out of respect for the privacy of others. If someone with no business there go down this road, the property owners have the right to tell them to leave (trespass them) and now they legally must leave. The tag for this situation in OSM is access=permissive. This is confusing because it sounds like property owners are happy to allow you access to their land. What it really means is any normal private property situation. There is not preemptive indication of restricted access, but if the owner tells you to leave then you are legally required to do so.

For reference: access=*#List_of_possible_values