Hi jradcliffe13, thanks for mapping with OSM!

It seems as if you have deleted all the address data from several houses in this area. Why did you do that? In OSM, we want to improve our map, and by deleting the address data out, it damages the map.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92791734

Hi lasdjflkdsfjf, thanks for editing with OSM!

As you requested, I have reviewed the edits that you made in this changeset. Unfortunately, it appears that there's a few problems with this change which I'd like to talk about.

Firstly, you provided a proper name to your barbed wire fence as "Provate property boundary". This is misspelled, but more importantly, the name of objects on OSM reflects the naming as it appears in the real world. I cannot confirm or deny whether there is actually a barbed wire fence surrounding your property around its entirety, however I'm quite certain the official, proper name of your fence is not "Provate property boundary." As such, I've deleted the name tag on the fence.

While this is private property, there are several roads on this site which are visible from satellite, and do exist. Imagine a scenario where a firefighter had to drive to the end to work an emergency. Access to maps is vital for this kind of information. Instead of deleting paths marked on private property, it's a better move to instead use access=private to prevent navigation clients from routing traffic into the area.

I will make the changes necessary to bring this into compliance with OSM's policies. Thank you for your contribution.

Hi MistyB, and thanks for editing with OSM!

I reviewed your edits, as requested. Very good job overall! You have great attention to detail with all the tagging choices you made. The only advice I'd give is you should choose POI business tagging or building polygon business tagging, one or the other. Having business details in two places means there's two different "entities" for the business, and there should only be one. What I recommend is set the building type, give it address and levels, and then place a business POI within the building that has all the contact details and business name. If a business is the only business relevant to that building, then it's fine to merge the node and the building tags together, and just put everything on the building.

I hope this helps. Keep on mapping! :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92730657

Hi charlieshied, and thanks for editing with OSM!

As requested, I've gone through and reviewed the edits you've made in this changeset. One thing I noticed is that you've marked driveways and Calle Louisa as access=private. This is going to cause the navigation apps to refuse to navigate a car down these paths. access=private is more suitable to roads in military bases, airport maintenance roads, factory roads... places where the public is prohibited. These driveways should probably be access=permissive instead, which will allow routing in some cases, but notes that the owner's permission is necessary to use it. Use access=private where a sign has been erected indicating the public is not allowed. You should double check Calle Louisa, because it's rare for a full residential road to not allow traffic on it.

Some of the segments you added where these roads join with others you marked as brand new roads, instead of extending the existing road or combining the ways together. What this will do is navigation clients will say "turn left on unnamed road, then continue straight onto Named Road." You should edit way/860840629 as a continuation of Douglas Mountain Drive, and way/860840627 as a continuation of Robinson Hill Rd.

One final note -- I would encourage you to not delete roadway segments that have problems if you can. Instead, try to edit them or reposition them to work the way you need them.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Happy mapping! :)

Hi galeforceheatingair! Thanks for adding your business with OSM!

There is a problem with your listing -- you forgot to tell the map editor what kind of point your business is! If you go back to here, and click Edit, select the point you added... Up at the top you see Feature Type. If you click that box that says Point, it will let you search for a feature type. I would suggest you type in HVAC Workplace.

After you select the feature type, you can go below and add things like your businesses phone number, website, email, or hours of operation.

Can you go in and fix this listing for us? If you need help, please don't hesitate to ask here. I'm here to help you!

Cheers!

Hi JCoraggio, and thanks for editing with OSM!

I reviewed your edits, as requested. The roadway alignment you changed looks great, as well as the driveways you added. Remember, less is more when it comes to number of nodes you use.

Keep on mapping! :)

Hi JCoraggio, and thanks for mapping with OSM!

I reviewed your changeset, as requested. Great alignment on the residential roads and driveways. You did use a lot of nodes around the curves of Scioto Court... remember, the less nodes you use, the smaller the downloads of the data will be for the end user. Sometimes I even go through and delete every other node on things I'm editing sometimes.

Great work! :D

Hi JCoraggio, and thanks for mapping with OSM!

As requested, I reviewed the edits you made. They all look great! Only thing I could mention is it might be a good idea to consolidate multiple edits into one or two changeset uploads instead of a bunch of them. It makes it easier on the system :)

Keep on mapping!

Hi JCoraggio, and thanks for mapping with OSM!

As requested, I took a look at your edits, and these three buildings look great! One thing you can do to ensure you have very good accuracy when drawing buildings is to frequently change between different background satellite imagery. By changing to a different image set, it can sometimes help to show features that aren't clear or obstructed by tree cover.

Keep on mapping! :)

chachafish, I brought this up with the community on #sidewalks on the slack, and the current consensus within the sidewalk community is that mapping both ways is a compromise necessary to provide more detailed routing information to engines that use the data. Apparently, some engines read sidewalk crossings one way, and others a different way, and to smooth out data issues, it was recommended by the community to tag both.

Apparently, this isn't the first time such a compromise was introduced. As quoted from the Slack group, "ianmcorvidae:arizona: 9:01 PM
I'd personally draw a parallel to older tag-transition scenarios -- for example, for a while (still?) some kinds of boundaries/areas it would be recommended to tag the ways even if the "one object" in question is a relation the ways are a member of. That was done to accommodate older data consumers that didn't know how to use relations, and this is the same: most routers don't know to consider crossing ways right now. Another consideration is that some things are properties of one way or the other (like markings, curbs, lanes) but some are really properties of the interaction/intersection, like the type of signals. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need to duplicate, but they are separate things (the crosswalk vs. its relationship with the roadway) and consumers are still messy."

Since the community consensus is to continue to use dual tagging, I'm going to continue to do so until something changes that information. If this information on tagging standards changes, I will log into JOSM and correct any old tags as necessary, as it's a pretty simple process to correct once the features are in place.

Okay, I see what you mean, thanks for explaining it! I believe the OpenSidewalks project had suggested using the crosswalk descriptors on both the way and the intersecting node. I'll get a better clarification of the project's policies and how it relates to the OSM rule you linked and go from there. Thanks!

So, I understand what you mean about the crossing needing to be traffic_signals instead of marked. That makes sense. I'm having a hard time interpreting what you're suggesting from the first part of your comment, though?

I managed to look up the changeset for the Civic Center, and I'm talking to #tagging about whether iD validator messed it up, and how to fix that. Do you have the way/object ID for the second station building? I can't locate it in the changeset log

I just pulled up the tags the validator did on the Civic Center Station, and it looks like it made them amenity=bus_station. Are you saying it should be using a building=* tag instead? Even without a validator, I'd consider the former tag to be a building if put as an area. What do you think?

When you're adding opening_hours values, please make sure you're using the standard format as described in the wiki opening_hours=*

Specifically, you're leaving out the colons, and you're using commas for separators when semicolons are standard OSM for multiple values in a field. As an example:

Mo 10:00-12:00,12:30-15:00; Tu-Fr 08:00-12:00,12:30-15:00; Sa 08:00-12:00

These issues came up in a JOSM validation search. I'm fixing them manually.

And the other aspect is, I talked to Denver GIS about this problem and asked what the official name is. They said the city of Denver is officially recognizing all streets like this to officially include the directional indicator as part of the name, but the DPW can take their sweet time in changing the signs over. I'm moving into this neighborhood, and I know my address includes East on it on our official paperwork. I am familiar with the on the ground rule. Is the answer to use "Cherry Creek South" with altname to "East" until the signs get updated, or is there a precedent for changing the data to match addresses being assigned to the neighborhood?

https://www.denvergov.org/media/gis/WebDocs/Assessment/AssessorMaps/asmt_06184.pdf

Take a look at this assessors map of a portion of the roadway, showing the East is reflected officially in the name of the road.

Thanks for your comment. Source for the change came from address, parcel, and assessor maps from Denver GIS which show the street to be named this way. Is that authoritative? What would you recommend we do? If reversion of the data is necessary, because there's other things in here than just the street, I'd prefer to create a different change set and change it all back manually if I had to.

That is a very strange circumstance. What I might do in this case is extend the roadway into Dedham, and give the portion in Dedham the name "Place", so at least your house is connected to a roadway that is searchable on the map. I'll do that for you. :)