Thanks for working on waterways! One thing to keep an eye out for is to make sure the side streams are all flowing downstream.

This one was pointed the wrong way but I've updated it. way/1355059795/history#map=19/38.423370/-91.043371

There's a really neat QA layer you may find helpful/interesting. https://waterwaymap.org/loops/

Anyhow... keep it up!

Hello! I would love to know if you have some tech for adding population info. The data in the US desperately needs a refresh and I could start from scratch but perhaps you have some tech I could crib off of.

Thanks!

It is so good! Here's some resources in case you want to dive in:

Wiki info: osm.wiki/OpenHistoricalMap
Community forum: https://forum.openhistoricalmap.org
A talk from a few folks on that project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKkAzJr25YU

Anyhow, happy mapping!

Thanks for adding this! I have a silly map that shows where we're lacking bicycle parking you may find fun: https://overpass-ultra.us/#query=gist:8aa0f652498160c3a51bde830b680bab

I appreciate it Nathan. Happy mapping.

You are free to add NEW way in either manner. You are not supposed to redo work from the more complex detail level to the lower detail level. This is common for footway/crossing mapping etc. I'm not asking you to make new things in a particular style. Simply to stop undoing the work of others.

It is the accepted concensus practice to split highway= ways where there is a median or other physical separation. This has been explained to you and you insist on mapping as you prefer. This is causing tension with other mappers in your area which is why we map using the consensus patterns and not our own preferences.

My hope is that you will respond affirming that you have heard and internalized this feedback from your fellow mappers and will cease reducing split ways into single ways with nodes embedded in them. If you choose not to I will have to escalate to the DWG who will then come and place a block until you decide you want to play along with everyone nicely. I do not understand your general reticence. Take a the feedback and we can all move on. We all make concessions of this type to help keep the map a happy place.

Please stop reducing junction detail by merging correctly split ways where there is physical separation. The other details you are adding are great but this particular pattern you are using isn't acceptable. It is damaging work done by other mappers.

My understanding is that other mappers have already been asked to stop using this incorrect pattern. My preference is to not have to involve the data working group but if you're going to insist on making a mess of things for your own style preference, I will have to send them a mail.

Hello! Lovely edits overall!

I wanted to comment on the highway=pedestrian areas you've added (ex: way/1295637481) to say that it does various routing engines a huge solid to have a secondary highway=footway,footway=sidewalk running through the area feature. It greatly aids in generating route that don't look like gibberish.

Many routers don't support areas routing at all and the ones that do will commonly route you along the perimeter of the area leading to all sorts of silly directions with additional "turns".

Everything else is looking really swell. Happy mapping.

Hello! What's the story with the highway=razed elements? A few have some, slight, trace on 3DEP but most seem to be completely gone. Those elements are better served by being put on OpenHistoricalMap.

lmao. Oh iD. Bless.

I am happy to work on getting those added. Will reach out if I hit anything super weird but I'll try to rip through the straight forward stuff.

Gotcha. Odd that iD complains about the way in that case but that’s a simple enough workaround.

Let me know if I can help with anything. I am almost done refreshing all of the 2008 imported census boundaries for WA and wouldn’t mind lending a hand elsewhere.

https://zelonewolf.github.io/wikidata-qa/

Obviously I forgot to add the site. Sorry about that.

If you want a decent list of "homework" zelonewolf has been work on a bunch of boundary checking. It includes "simple" stuff like these tag issues as well as warning about things missing or misnamed (when compared to wikidata or census lists) etc

Hmmm. Can you post an example? Playing around with the boundaries near me I am not able to reproduce a validator error. Both of the below work without triggering the validator for me.

ex: remove boundary tags from a way osm.wiki/Tag:(admin_level=, osm.wiki/Tag:boundary=, boundary_type)

ex: change the geometry of a boundary that only has untagged ways as members

Let me check and see what iD is trying to warn about but from a practical standpoint, all admin boundaries are supposed to go on relations and the tagging should go there. I think the previous practice from older imports was to also include the tags on the imported ways, presumably because the tooling made it annoying/difficult to figure out what the way was for if it was untagged and only part of a relation.

I definitely don't want to cause every iD mapper a headache!

Lovely work here!

Love the hatchery!

Awesome. No rush, the map will be here at whatever pace they keep :-)

Entirely likely it's just vestigial bad data at this point. Worth mentioning to them (if you have a point of contact) and cleaning up on our side. Whenever I send stuff like this in to USGS they're really responsive and seem grateful.