this signal configuration suggests they may have added a traffic signal on grove, but hadn't paid attention to that

this and the prior change at this intersection were a best-effort judgment call: if i turn left from WB market, i should be on guerrero, never on laguna. but there are tiger tags here too. this changeset makes them consistent with my name change, but if tiger tags are automated (and are going to revert back to laguna all-the-way-across) then i should put it back, whether i think it's wrong or not

i've marked CAIS as disused here, which feels instinctively non-sensical. it's inside the larger international high campus. but deleting seems more wrong

exact positioning taken from big bus web site https://www.bigbustours.com/en/san-francisco/red-route-san-francisco - click on stop 7 for streetside photo

this change *moves a node* which is generally poor form. but the node is part of the private big bus tours network and no other relations; it would have had no related infra other than a sign

adding grass/kerb since real roundabout tags seem to conflict with relations. did i draw the kerb in the correct direction (raised)?

at about oak st, gough merges with the western addition borough boundary. it's unclear to me whether they should be merged north of oak, or disconnected south

this segment is unique in carrying the old parking:lane tags. i've tried to retain them but convert to new parking system. the rest of the road has no tagged parking

this is a biggie and i'm sure there's something that could be done better. documents the marked bike routes at this scary intersection. i visited to ensure aerial was correct but unsure mapping is optimal

i filled in the 538 address on the door. this isn't the business's primary address. the business occupies the full frontage of this building, but depth is unknown. 538 should be a door, but that would need an area...?

my notes were only good enough to document these segments. there is a traffic island at the intersection with arroyo pkwy, and the same striping continues east to los robles

this will eventually be a large undertaking. south los robles lacks the 'south' designator; i'm not clear on whether it stops being called 'south' at some point. i renamed only two blocks that can be confirmed from business websites

in changeset/142626978, adjusted the endpoints to attach to source/destination streets

for review because i'm not sure about those steps - physically they're a big triangular thing (not fixed width) and i feel like they might be more than one storey high, though probably not 2

there's no destination-style signage for this ramp, but not clear if osm requires us to make one up for every link (in which case the previous designation of 'south van ness ave' would be reasonable but misleading, since one lane enters the freeway directly)

marked for review because not sure of 'traffic island' tag on the barrier

marked for review because iD said i was deleting the underground garage, but it's still there (with updated tags). definitely no intent to delete

d'oh - thank you
changeset/137665665

ok. i needed for a human to tell me one of those was safe :) this is reverted under changeset/132331332

hmm. i'm fine with a revert, but i seem not to have the tooling to do it safely, plus i'm relatively new and afraid of busting stuff. (to wit, i didn't realize one couldn't just push a button and have it go poof.) is this something you're comfortable with, or can you recommend a guru from whom i can enlist help?