Hey MG,

Just wanted to point out that the name=* field is used for the actual visible name of things. For the hydrant, for instance, if it said "Disconnected" on it, that would be accurate, but since I assume that you're trying to indicate that the hydrant is inoperable, I would suggest adding a "Lifecycle prefix", so perhaps disused:emergency=fire_hydrant would be an option.

As for the ruins, if they're not actually named, perhaps you could put that information in a description=* tag.

Happy mapping!

Your reasoning makes a lot of sense. In my way of thinking, zebra stripes are uncontrolled in the sense that they aren't unmarked and don't have signals. But taginfo shows crossing=zebra to be one of the most common, so I'm going to say it seems like a good strategy.

Yes, I suppose as long as the way is highway=footway, footway=crossing, and the node is highway=crossing, the crossing=* isn't important.

Hey, I noticed that you changed a lot of crossing=* to crossing=zebra, but according to the wiki, this isn't a standard tagging scheme. It appears it's a commonly used tag, but while I think it might be fine changing =uncontrolled to it, I think changing =traffic_signals to =zebra removes important information. The wiki suggests using crossing_ref=zebra in these instances, while still using =uncontrolled or =traffic_signals or whatever. Would it be possible to revise these changes?

Awesome! I was just talking about this yesterday, where there's all these names for subdivisions, and no one outside of the residents ever knows where they are.

Reverted both changesets.

You really shouldn't delete ways with lots of history. Any reason you can't realign the existing ways to a GPS trace? I think this changeset (and 43195172) should be reverted.

Just want to check that this path is actually not there? Your comment says you added a revision, but it looks like you just deleted it. So the Bailout trail ends abruptly. I want to make sure this wasn't an accident. Thanks!

Yeah, unfortunately, a lot of things that are known as something locally can be tagged differently, simply because a lot of the tags originated in the UK. Take highway=footway, for instance. We call them sidewalks, but that means something very specific in OSM. Oh well.

Just want to point out that Spring Creek qualifies as a "river" according to OSM tagging rules (waterway=stream); note "the commonly accepted rule for OpenStreetMap is that a stream can be jumped across by an active, able-bodied person". I've reverted the tagging on that feature.

Hello dbf and DD1GJ,
Sorry about not connecting the path. I believe I started using routing apps after I traveled to Oberwesel, and since then I have been connecting ways more consistently. I looked at this region again a few days ago and thought I might need to fix some things. Thank you to DD1GJ for preempting it.

The building's definitely still there (and still says Gamble Mill, but I found news articles that verify its closure). Reverted in changeset/38514129.

I saw that you changed back from vinyl_siding to wood, reasoning that there is no tag. But OSM isn't always about fitting into the values that exist. If you look here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=vinyl#values , you will find that there is someone out there who has used it. Wood is certainly inaccurate, and it would be better to leave it blank than mistaken. I would say keep it vinyl_siding, or perhaps plastic, and hope that it catches on.

I vaguely remember doing this, and I would say it's because JOSM popped it up as a 'warning'. Would you explain to me the issue with those tags? I can't say I fully understand why they wouldn't be appropriate, but defer to your judgment. I've removed the tags, but would like to know for the future.

Sorry about that. You're right, I got confused about the directions of the oneways. I've been cycling around, so I have been getting used to the left-side driving. Thanks for fixing this.

Sorry about that. That was simply a mistake, not intentional.

Sorry about that. I've broken one of the basic rules. I thought I had been through this roundabout, so I apologize for confusing it with another one. Thanks for checking my edits. I'll make sure to verify what I'm doing with on-the-ground survey.

Would this actually be a path? Usually footway is used for sidewalks (paved). Also, notice the path that this parallels. Maybe those should be a single way.

Fair point. Editing may have been a better term. While nothing was seriously broken (routing issues, for instance), there were a lot of topological inconsistencies, so I made some changes to that. I apologize for deleting and redrawing the museum. I did not think about the history of changesets that would be removed. I will consider that in future.

My apologies. I should have phrased the changeset comment differently. I also apologize for entering your mapping territory. I understand your comments, and I didn't think about the issues for routing it would create.

I have reverted the deletion of the Pride Hill way. If there are other issues, let me know.

Wasn't there a big old discussion about half a year back about how the parade route SHOULD NOT be a separate way? It is not a separate path, and should not be mapped as one. DON'T TAG FOR THE RENDERER. The parade route should be if anything a route multi.