it's not clear to me whether we remove the street entirely, but i opted for just access:no for now. there are no street markings, just bollards. i didn't take note of whether the two blocks on the larkin side exist

the building deliberately does not connect to smith hall to the east; the overhanging section does not meet the neighboring building.

there are two bits that are roof-only that overhang the path. that roof is at level 1, while the enclosed building has two levels. the existing crossing points were correct. also, there was an impossible one-way section in the car park, for which i closed the loop

this is based on a site visit, but i went only from ocean to the building, so can't speak for anything north. bing aerial is accurate, google maps is not, and other site plans within the ccsf site are not.

additional notes: stop at hayes/masonic was relocated, as it uses the same nextbus ref and no other lines share it. route:disused probably isn't the right marker, but didn't see any official way for lifecycle tagging. after issues are noted and cleared, i'll do the inbound side

there are no traffic lanes south of ellis. i changed the crossings to 'tram/path' from 'rail/path' so they could be marked as having signals. removed no-left from powell to ellis, as ellis is one-way. please review/correct

this removes some of the turn-restriction relations around market toward southbound church, which now is tagged as cycle-only. this also was flagged by a note. could use confirming eyes

stockton st doesn't have actual bends until market st, but osm has had a meandering line for it. i am about to survey the market st intersection anyway, as the lanes in osm don't look right

when van ness brt was mapped, some of the van ness ways got a rather meandering look, particularly south of market and north of sacramento. i'm trying to put the way down the center of the traffic lanes

these aren't true crossings; they're an artifact of having tracks in traffic lanes

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...?