Hi, thanks for your comment.

I don't think adding this extra tag does any harm the default map view, and it allows for more internationalization by adding it. I agree with the defacto tags being the way they already are, but I I am looking to allow multiple points of view for disputed places.

Besides pointing to a different "China version map" (I assume outside of OSM), do you have another suggestion on how to tag this, please?

9 days, deleting this now

Giving this another 24 hours then planning to delete feature.

Can you tell me more about this edit? I've driven across the bridge as recently as last weekend and have never seen this cemetery! It is a bit funny (and is very detailed, might be useful for something like Pokemon Go?), but if it's not real this feature should probably be removed.

Hi! Is this really a road? I turned it into a ferry so it's a less obvious bug, but I'm not even sure it's a valid ferry. Tell me a little more about what you were trying to digitize and maybe I can suggest better tags?

Thank you! I saw the other one but could never get the two to associate in the same iD editor view. Did you use JOSM?

I've been able to follow the coastline feature in this area, and confirming with metro-extracts downloader. But not intuitive process.

I downloaded a custom Metro Extract from here: https://mapzen.com/data/metro-extracts/your-extracts/91259720005a and I *do* see ocean water covering that area. Did you also edit the ocean water? Or how did you determine the ocean water already existed here?

I'll check out the ocean polygon, but I'm suspicious about a solution that is at once minutely and yearly update cycles, that sounds like a disruptive change.

Hello! I like how you're adding detail for bay names along the Gulf :)

But I noticed your change (from natural=water to only natural=bay) is causing some maps made with OSM data to stop showing 'blue' water for these features.

(For example: http://dotmaps.openaddresses.io/175766/#lat=30.3977&lng=-87.1195&z=12.0133.)

From the same wiki page you reference:

"Since bays are generally part of a larger waterbody, either a lake or the ocean, they should not be rendered in solid color indicating water themselves. The Standard tile layer renders named bays with a label."

It appears the default OSM.org map styling doesn't make your change as obvious, though, because of this setting where 'blue' water color is draw when there is no land and no water:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/524add0d26b863e4225f92e39cd530566b22b2b2/style.mss#L2

Is it possible to add the bays on top of the original water (either as separate features or as another set of relations), please? Or maybe there's another solution that's better :)

_Nathaniel

Good point. I think that's from an old and bad DCGIS import. I've deleted it here: changeset/47520982.

(Replied some more in the us-talk thread.)

Thanks! Alternatively from bicycle:designated=greenway it could be bicycle=greenway (and bicycle=greenwave). But then we get into tagging for (older) renderer debates.

This GIST lists the OpenStreetMap tags the Mapzen bike map is using to display bike route colors: https://gist.github.com/nvkelso/fe46993c6c334b52c4b9d6cf5aabffa7

I'm making edits to places I live, have visited, or have done multi-source research – including official and unofficial local bike maps (print and online). I'm also making edits based on comments from locals in these areas saying the previous basic tagging didn't match their on-the-ground experience or expectations from a bike map.

The existing OSM wiki documented tags for bicycle needs to grow a bit to describe things like bike boulevards, greenwaves, and buffered_lanes. I'm happy to move the discussion along!

Thanks for the background! Is this a case where tags (should) mean something slightly different from country to country (like how implied max speed is interpreted)? The highway=living_street tag was suggested to me by someone else commenting on another changeset, lol. The reason I like it is it should try and route cars around this street.

Tiffany Avenue is already part of a bicycle route relation – but that alone doesn't signify as almost all the bike related streets in San Francisco are already in relations so that isn't a meaningful indicator that this particular street has better biking than others nearby.

Tiffany has `cycleway=shared_lane` and John and I have also experimented with adding a `bicycle:designated=greenway` tag. Looking at Portland there are streets that aren't residential that are designated as part of a greenway so maybe this is the best (new) tag to use.

No worries :) It was really confusing in iD to fix this, the user flow there is not intuitive – and I think I would have made the same edit funky edit and 2nd round of fixing!

I had to know ahead of time there was a rendering bug in iD, and know that by creating another relation for the lake I'd be able to have separate tags for the lake "hole" versus the surrounding wood relation :\

Attempt to fix in: changeset/45069739

New name to that effect was also added, probably around 38.7229602,-120.5654347. Maybe an unsuccessful polygon punch?

Looks like a bad relations edit that turned the old `natural=wood` tag into a `landuse=reservoir` tag, resulting in a huge lake showing up where before it was forest?

Oops, fixed in 39962383. I notice the iD editor sometimes does this to me :\

This doesn't seem legit.