remember, don't clip your landuse features to the edge of the task square. map the entire feature, even if it goes over the edge of the area
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161112446

Hi Elliott!

It's definitely not an experiment! I believe the idea was discussed either on the OSMUS Slack or OSM World Discord, but it would have been quite some time ago.

I personally do not like the address-on-building approach because it cannot be applied consistently. Townhomes, retail strip malls, duplexes, and the like, cannot have an address placed on the building way, as the building encompasses multiple addresses and points of interest. Addresses as separate points can be applied regardless of single/multi tenancy.

I believe the address-on-entrance method is more useful as well. If I am looking for 123 Some Street, having the address on the entrances means that I am getting routed to the correct means of accessing whatever is at that address.

It may not matter much with single family detached housing, but for a larger building with multiple entrances, getting routed directly to the correct entrance would be ideal. In such a situation, there's not a good way of clearly indicating which entrance goes to what address, short of tagging them to the same node. This method requires no additional processing step to find the entrance node of a given address, and leaves no room for ambiguity.

Pulling back and applying the addresses to an area rather than a point is to make them less precise, and possibly less functional.

Hope that helps explain what we're going for here.

you've got "entrance=main", but the addresses aren't connected to the building's outer boundary. can you please fix these?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161429568

hey there! thanks for contributing to the MR project, but we're trying to move the addresses onto the entrances, not merge them with the footprints.

hey there! nice to see you got OSM Go figured out.

just a tip: always leave a changeset comment, even if it's something simple like "updating information for restaurants"

is that *really* a shrubbery? looks like you meant scrub?

fixed

hey, i wouldn't put private on these paths, this preserve is open to the public

sorry, but in OSM we map what exists. if something has legal reasons precluding access, that can be tagged accordingly, but 2024 imagery shows that this road certainly connects through here.

a couple of these farmland areas were multipolygons with only a single outer ring. not sure how you managed that in iD, but be careful. a multipolygon can be valid for these kinds of features, but you'd expect there to be some kind of inner ring, like a hole punched out or something. since these were just simple areas, they should have been closed ways, not relations.

hey, don't forget a changeset comment!

heads up: it's "source:historic" for the tags on these nodes

For WB, I consider exit 113 as the point at which you exit the toll road. True, you can't get on that stretch without passing through a toll first, but when you drive it, it feels like you've left the tollway at that point.

Nice! Always good to see another local updating the map. I'm over in Plano, but I work for the County GIS department. We have some high quality aerials, so I am pretty sure that's a bike path. Our aerials are due to be updated in the next month or so, and I'll go back over this area once we get them in.

Hey there! Are you a local to this area? I noticed that part of that stream is actually a bike path. I'm working off the county's imagery from last fall, so I can't totally tell where all the culverts are going, but I don't think it's following that route, looks more like it's crossing west under Devoe.

what is the purpose of these relations? unincorporated areas are defined by inner rings of administrative boundaries, they don't need their own relations

you haven't answered the question.

by what measure is your classification system consistent?

so you're going to follow IDOT's classification, then? you've got a lot of US routes that need downgrading, then. lots of 34, 52, 6 are shown as minor arterials by IDOT.

or you're going to use street view?
compare
- US 34 east of orchard (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6831415,-88.3613472,3a,75y,273.26h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s46RDUd-Zi62Oy7mamQ3XWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
- IL 31 north of Oswego (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6905577,-88.3551076,3a,60y,11.39h,88.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqeLC1GolJYhGDE1v4kzmFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
- Orchard (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6926215,-88.3803817,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7_gAHd9LcqrgzDULQApeQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

by what measure should these three roads be classed the same? your classification is not consistent on physical characteristics, nor IDOT classification, nor us / state route status, nor local opinion.

because it literally is not the primary route between these locations. whether you want to go by usage or by physical characteristics, orchard road is the main route by which folks get north and south.

same goes for the stretch of US 34 you upgraded. east of Orchard to the river, it's a two lane road with hardly any shoulder, and only access to a handful of businesses and residential driveways; locals largely do not use it as a primary route, they use 71.

and lastly, and most importantly: there was actually local consensus on this. you drop out of nowhere to impose your statewide defaults, which you stated elsewhere could change based on local conditions, and i'm telling you there are local conditions that local mappers have agreed upon.

i'm trying to be understanding, but please revert this.

the classifications in this area is the result of discussion consensus among mappers who live and work in this area.

we don't need a blanket policy blindly applied to highways based on us / state routes.