Hi G1asshouse,

Sorry, I missed your comment earlier and am only just seeing it now.

That number format was set by the Vespucci editor, not by me. If I go now in that editor and try to format the number using spaces, it will reformat the number to the current format before uploading. I realize now that the prior format was also correct. What probably happened was that I edited the POI next door, saw the editor reformat my input, (wrongly) assumed that the spaces-only format was wrong, and changed that to match the Vespucci format.

I had a look today, and also did not find any signage. I don't have any special knowledge of the area, but it does seem plausible that "Adams" is actually just Cowlitz.

Hi Omnific,

I noticed you added `amenity=police` to the SPD stables at Westcrest Park. This tag is meant only for a standard police station, typically where a member of the public could walk in to file a police report, etc. The stables don't have any public-facing facilities, so I think `amenity=police` should be removed.

Regards,
wislander

Not a revert, that tag is left over from 2 changesets ago.

Not a revert, that tag is from my previous changeset.

Hi ArtOfTheTrek_Sayyed,

What do you mean by "field experience" as a source? Did you personally hike these trails?

I know that the Mount Stuart trail is a serious climb requiring some level of expertise and specialized equipment, which puts it well above T1. Several of the others also seem unlikely to be T1, based on terrain and trail names like "scramble".

Regards,
wislander

In general, I think 'bicycle=yes' would be the best option. When there's a conflict between the legal and practical/physical aspects of an access tag, legal is supposed to win out. I think your concerns are valid, however.

Hi austinsnow,

I was just walking these sidewalks tonight, and I didn't see any signage designating them explicitly for bikes. What was the reason for changing from bicycle=yes to =designated?

Thanks, and welcome to OSM!

Yeah, there's many of us who feel that "unmaintained track" is not the best description of that feature, but that description was chosen to try to fix some other misunderstandings about when to use tracks. Despite what that says, tracks can be maintained well, poorly, or not at all—roads in OSM are defined by their purpose, not their physical condition.

In the editor, when you go to edit a road's type, there's a little "i" on the right side of each feature type. It'll give you a description that's a little longer, and you can see that a track is described as for agricultural or forestry, and service ways are described as providing access to a building. You'll also find a link to the relevant page on the OSM wiki there, which goes into more detail. wiki.openstreetmap.org is usually the best place to go to find definitions of different feature types, and there's also help.openstreetmap.org for when the wiki doesn't answer your question.

I hope that was helpful, and welcome to OSM!

Hi coolwhiff,

Could you go into more detail about your reasoning for this change? To my knowledge, these roads are used only for forestry and recreation, which would make them a clear-cut (no pun intended) example of tracks. Service roads are typically short and found near buildings, such as driveways, drive-thrus, parking aisles, or alleys.

Thanks,
wislander

Hey G1asshouse,

I think at the time I only noticed Natfoot's name on the separate cycleways and overlooked yours, so I had only commented on changeset/73198958. When I didn't hear anything back for a few days, I went ahead and edited. Sorry for not reaching out to you as well!

One difference with Roosevelt vs Ravenna is that Roosevelt has those bus stop islands between the car lanes and the bike lane. I left the cycleways alone there because I thought that information might be important to someone, but I can also see the logic for making it consistent with Ravenna.

Hey Natfoot,

I'm not sure separate ways are the best way to represent the Ravenna Blvd bike lanes. They're not really physically separated from a cyclist's perspective, as cyclists can easily merge out of them, across the paint-and-post buffer zone, into another lane. Additionally, the rationale for mapping sidewalks separately mostly doesn't apply to bike lanes: whereas separately-mapped sidewalks can have barriers like curbs accurately placed on them, to better route i.e. people in wheelchairs, cycling doesn't have a comparable issue. I don't see the benefit for having them as separate lanes.

However, if you're really set on having separate ways for bike lanes, would you change the cycleway tag on the neighboring roadway to cycleway=separate? As is currently mapped, we have two map features for each real-life feature. This is especially noticeable on Open Cycle Map.

Thanks!

Ok, thanks! I'm finally back at my computer and will change some of them to residential now.

Hey Adam,

It looks like you changed all the roads in Ocean View from residential to living street. From the ground, these roads look like pretty standard residential ways, with nothing to indicate a living street. What was the basis for this change?

Hi sctrojan79, I saw that after another user expanded abbreviations on public transit stops around Seattle, you re-abbreviated them in changesets like this one. Is there a different convention for [abbreviation](osm.wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29) in public transport than there is for highways?

Hi Nick,

It looks like East Hamlin Street (way/460235934) and the sidewalk of Montlake Blvd E were removed from the Lake Washington Loop relation in this changeset. This creates a gap in the relation for southbound travel. What was the reason for this removal?

Regards,
wislander

Thanks for the heads up! I was editing in Vespucci, so I couldn't be very precise, but I'm planning on going back over my changes in JOSM this week and improving the building outlines. I also have a bunch of address and level details saved as an .osc that I'll upload at that point.

Hi nirmac04,

I don't think park is the most appropriate tag for Saratoga/Putney. leisure=park says "A park is an area of open space provided for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes." Putney and Saratoga are _fully_ natural, are not designed, and have little open space. I think the previous nature_reserve tag was more appropriate. Also, there is no public land around the Coral Root Trail—it's an easement through private land, and a user is trespassing as soon as they step off of it.

The OSM principle of [One feature, one OSM element](osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element) suggests that there should only be one polygon each for Saratoga and Putney woods. I'd like to keep the nature_reserve polygons and remove the park polys. Is this all right with you?

Thanks,

wislander

Has the east path been widened? When I was last on it in 2014, it was much too narrow and had too many steps to qualify as a track.

I tagged it as a track because it just accesses a natural area and related recreational facilities, not any residential or commercial areas. I also looked at the US Roads Tagging guide (wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging) which says, "Most unpaved roads belong in highway=track" and "Unpaved roads, dirt track roads, forest development roads, jeep trails, and roads not passable by all vehicles merit highway=track instead". It seemed like the precedent was set for unpaved roads accessing natural areas in the US was for them to be tracks.