I mean, I'm not opposed to tagging it as a cycleway as that is its current function, it just seems awkward. Same thing with Lake Montebello, and how its outer road is tagged as a cycleway right now: it's a little strange, but it's probably the best tagging scheme at the moment.

I'm not sure about that. There really isn't any indication that it is accessible at all, by bikes or anything. Also, going from east to west on the northern one is not really safe at speed because of the angle of the plastic bollards on the west end. So it's not really a cycleway, it's just an old bit of road that bikes can use...

Kind of, but more like the upcoming move is sapping my mental energy. Don't worry, I'll be back into it at some point.

Public art is one of my side passions from this past year. I'll definitely work on this at some point.

Hello,

I see you're adding thousands of buildings, and it looks like you're importing from the Microsoft dataset. These outlines are very poor and innaccurate, and I'm not sure if you've had this import approved. Do you have any documentation and discussion anywhere for performing this mass import? I have been manually adding buildings to the Huntington area for quite some time, and editing these buildings you've added would take more effort than adding them by hand.

Thanks!

pkoby
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101740103

Hello,

Welcome to OSM! You've done some great work mapping buildings here. A couple points I'd mention: instead of adding a tiny building named "Vacant Lot", I would simply add nothing, or outline the building on the imagery and use "demolished:building=house". Alternatively, you can simply add a point and put the address on it. For the parking lot, you can add the area for the lot and tag it "amenity=parking".

But great job adding so many buildings with addresses! Feel free to reach out with any questions.

pkoby

That's my bad!

I just checked all my changesets around that area from that time frame, and aside from the road you linked, it looks like I changed this road to a service road without a name: way/605065233

Other than that, I can't find any name deletions.

Oh wow, very cool! Thanks for the info.

Fair point! I also don't think that there is any signage on-site to point one way or another.

Do you have a source for the name? I talked to some people from GHPRD awhile back, and they were impressed that I knew it was Kiwanis Park, so I was curious.

I noticed that you had changed the name of this road, but the fact that it's private is in the tags (you can see that it's got gray dashes as well, meaning private).

Hi, welcome to OSM. I noticed you're new to the website, but it looks like you might have some local knowledge that I don't. Do you have a source for these names? I've heard of some of them, but not all.

It's weird to see you editing in my neck of the woods. :P

I just came across this changeset when I was mapping around Ashland. As I see it, the section of US 23 between A K Steel Entrance Road and probably around the mall is not any different in road type than the trunk road north of the steel works. The current of section of primary road is IMO "partially grade-separated". Could this be returned to highway=trunk? The current change in classification seems arbitrary. Eager to hear thoughts.

Hey. I don't know why that would be there, but having done some looking, it seems like the last editor added that tag by mistake when adding other track to the area. I removed the tag from the boundary, because there are no evident roads in the area that aren't already mapped.

Outdated local knowledge and imagery, I guess. I'll revert shortly.

No worries!

I understand that you're mapping this for the game, but that doesn't mean you should mis-tag features in the OSM database. There is no tag 'natural=trees'. The tag that matches what you want is 'natural=wood' (as in woods/forest). That's all there is.

The woods exist in real life. If you don't map them in OSM, someone else might. If you were to delete the woods so it looks right in the game, that change would be reverted.

The right thing to do is add the woods correctly tagged. Then if the game does not do what you want it to do, then edit the map in the game. That's all you can do. OSM comes first; any product using OSM data has to follow the tagging structure of OSM first.

Well, tagging an area of trees (which is what you should be doing here) is tagged 'natural=wood'. 'natural=tree' is for an individual point, which you should NOT do for a large area of woods. It's a tag for a notable individual tree.

So the woods should be tagged in OSM (as natural=wood) if you want to be complete, but adding the trees in TGC would either be individually by hand or through LIDAR.

Not sure why the game would now not import; that's strange...

I found some forum threads about the TGC game. Apparently tagging an area 'natural=wood' in OSM imports into the game as gravel (not concrete). To get woods in-game, you have to import from LIDAR data which is much more accurate than OSM ever would be. I think then that the trees would layer atop the gravel.

Regardless, in OSM, you should tag the woods as 'natural=wood', and it seems like there are no tags to add to it that would bring it into the game. So tag the woods correctly on the map if you want, but it won't import it...