Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing! This changeset looks fine however minor correction, an address probably doesn't belong on a swimming pool. Even if the entire contents of an address were a public swimming pool, you'd probably tag the address on the building or whole facility (or just a single point out front) rather than giving the water itself an address. And in the case of an apartment complex, it's super likely that the address will be duplicated elsewhere, like the main office or front entrance. So removing the address tags here and making sure the address is properly represented elsewhere without duplication is a good improvement.

Finally, a major thing about pools is whether they're public, open to customers/residents, or private. So filling in the appropriate access tag is always nice for pools.

Thanks again and cheers!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117066902

Hi, thank you for contributing to my maproulette challenge, but how do you know this location has updated its branding? It's indoors so you'd have to live here to know.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116481930

What is `layer=POCKET`? Shows as a validation error in JOSM.

Welcome to OSM, thank you for your contributions! I've been managing the Sonoma County building and address import, and have worked with jrpear for his Santa Rosa address import (all the address POIs in town), so if you have any questions or would like to help make our local maps better please let me know!

It definitely "feels" like commuter rail to me -- I'd have to be a real nerd to notice a difference between it and LIRR or suburban overland NYC MTA for example besides age, style, number of cars, and electrification. But I'll let my vote be one drop in the bucket for wider consensus.

I guess at the end of the day I don't think SMART considers *itself* light rail, but rather the most affordable and pragmatic commuter rail given the constraints. When I hear light rail I think Seattle or Phoenix's rinky-dink glorified trollies, which are just a pretty different class and style of service.

It seems odd to call something light rail that isn't; not only the distance, speeds, track configuration and stations are different but the rolling stock itself is different. I can imagine plenty of rail where passenger service takes the majority but freight is also run in between at odd hours, that doesn't mean that the passenger service is suddenly somehow "light."

Put it this way, what is the desired end result? My first thought seeing smart tagged as light rail is that a data consumer would think oh, this is a <40mph lowrider inner-city line for urban commuting, with multiple stops per mile. And certainly not a >40mph full height inter-city line for suburban commuting with one or two stops per city. And so speed estimates for navigation would be totally off, appearance in the map would be off... and what data consumer thinks "oh, good thing I know it's light rail, that means freight runs on it in off-hours." OSM train afficionados, that's about it.

FYI somehow this changeset added a new overlapping Dutton Avenue to the existing one, which causes an overlapping highway validation error in JOSM

way/7722206

Thanks for all your hard work today! Overall it looks amazing.

Is there a reason why SMART has been changed in OSM to "light rail?" It fits no definition of "light rail" that I'm aware of.

Yeah it's a judgment call for sure, like where on earth is truly LGBT-exclusive, what would that look like? I myself am not part of the community and don't live in Seattle so anyone better informed is welcome to improve things.

There was some debate about this at the time, as an example of a place that would warrant this tag, especially on websites that categorize locations by lgbt-exclusivity. Ultimately those who attend this bar would be best equipped to decide, I'm just going off this page:

https://kuow.org/stories/why-capitol-hill-no-longer-gay-epicenter-seattle/

Ok! Best way to map that is probably to have two lakes connected by a single line tagged as a waterway tunnel. If you really need to represent a building with water underneath, you can also tag the water as layer=-1 but that's hacky and unreliable.

Cool! You requested review, so:
- parking aisles aren't for the main way to access a building, but for the inner grids of large parking lots where the only reason you'll drive there is for parking. A regular service road is fine and preferred for the main way in and out of a parking lot.
- footways should be connected to something: usually a building (you can tag the intersecting node as a building entrance) or a road, that way navigation apps can use it for routing.
- water shouldn't intersect buildings or footpaths or roads without a tunnel or bridge. In this case it looks like the Northwest building maybe straddles two "lakes" rather than the lake actually going underneath? You can mark the paths over the water as bridges as well.
That's about it, thanks for the contribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111076635

Thanks for your contributions! The shape of the Uplands Preserve on this website ( https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/lands/?property=76 ) doesn't match the shape in your changeset, do you have a source for the shape? Also, the description of an element in OSM should be about a sentence long and contain only critical information, details can be found by users clicking on the linked website.

Thanks again!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108714827

Hi there, this is a dangerous edit, I have fixed it but Baker Avenue's sidewalk does not have a pedestrian crossing with HWY 101; it's a bridge. This edit would basically have people's GPSes assuming that there's a pedestrian crosswalk crossing 7 lanes of interstate, which isn't the case. I've changed the elevated segment of sidewalk to be a bridge to correct this: changeset/109283174
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109160765

Hi Karthoo! I noticed you had Rainbow Connection listed as lgbt=only however as far as I can tell it's lgbt oriented but not necessarily exclusive (i.e. others are "practically banned" per the wiki). do you have better knowledge of this location?

Ah gotcha no biggie, obviously if you surveyed in person that is the most authoritative. (I'm also a big fan of looking at mailboxes!)

your latest change looks good!

some local examples of diverse parking options:

437 College Ave: just service roads in and out

4th Street near D Street: parking lane tagging (with splits so that it's not tagged along the whole way)

2300 Mendocino Ave: large lots with parking aisles
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105043799

Hi Steven! See my comment on your previous changeset, but again you've got a parking_aisle way that is overlapping and connected to a separate highway way. This isn't how that works. Again thanks for all your work! way/945235382
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105046504

Hey FYI when you're conflating, pay special care not to delete good info. This node for 1532 Brookside Drive #A for example seems to refer to a "granny unit" and was placed over a separate building from 1532 Brookside Drive proper, and yet was deleted. A similar thing happened with 631 Codding Drive as well. Check out tools like OSMCha.org for better ways of visualizing changesets if that helps. Thanks for all your hard work locally!

node/8413909445
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104982555

Also as you can see here, user_5359 has fixed most of these issues for you. Just please review what was done so you can know better for the future :) changeset/105044276
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105020678