Looks like I accidentally dragged in the browser editor - it was originally in the back of the Dallas Texas Temple.

I’ve moved it back. Thanks!

Looks like leftovers from a very, very old import

Hi there - are all these thoroughfares (like North Bowie Drive) truly under construction, or are they still in proposed status?

Hi there-

When tagging points of interest in buildings, you should only use the applicable amenity/shop/etc tag on the point of the business, not on the building. For example, this building should remain "building=retail" since the individual shops are points:

way/585471178/history#map=19/29.55291/-95.39461

There is an exception when a building has a single occupant, in which case all the other tags like name/brand/etc should also be included in the building without a separate point duplicating the information, e.g. here: way/543506914/history

thanks,

andrew

Aye, this is a tag I created to track edits I do around Texas that started with small towns

Thanks for being open to feedback! If you have the ability to share with everyone else at Amazon Logistics, it would be much appreciated. You're doing great work getting service driveways added to OSM so I want y'all to be the most effective.

Thanks again,

Andrew

Hi there-

When mapping service roads, please don't add an access=private tag unless you know the on-the-ground conditions actually warrant it. Routers only use service ways to reach a destination along the service way and tagging this main driveway with access=private creates a mis-match with the drive-through ways at the bank here.

Also, when a service way crosses a dual-carriage public roadway, the section that crosses the public road should NOT be tagged as a service road with access=private. That portion should be tagged with the same highway tag (or appropriate _link tag) with NO access designation since it's part of the city's street network. This also allows routers to use that segment for u-turns.

See this way as an example where you had it crossing Turtle Creek Boulevard: way/718906232

Thanks,

Andrew

You would be correct that the data comes from the Microsoft building footprint dataset as the changeset was created in the experimental version of RapiD (http://weeklyosm.eu/archives/12400). I've included a #mapwithAI hashtag to help identify it as AI-assisted mapping, but not the word "import" to avoid clogging up any QA tool with changesets that aren't really imports. To my knowledge there isn't any policy that AI-assisted mapping is governed by the same rules as an official import since RapiD requires selecting each individual feature that's brought in.

Hey, Kevin. Similar question here: where did you get the address data for the home addresses?

Hi Kevin-

What is your source for address data on this changeset?

*Awesome* job on the land use 👍

I looked more closely and it looks like the original user may have done this from local knowledge and mapped the whole area with "building=yes". I think it may potentially be a building that has been expanded multiple times, which would explain the varying roof lines, but I didn't want to override someone with on-the-ground knowledge.

Ultimately I think the 'right' answer is that if the church doesn't take up the entire area, the buildings should be split and the right amenity/building tags applied. Alas we have no street-level imagery :)

Hi Elinorzag, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I've replaced the multipolygon you created here with a separate "leisure=ice_rink" way.

It's a highly unusual thing to split and name the entire landuse for the shopping mall based on such a minor amenity inside the building, the best practice would be to just map the ice skating rink as a separate way.

Hey there! Just a quick thing, normally we don't like to connect landuse areas to roads (since area where I sidewalk is part of public right-of-way). Also, if you find any roads with bridges, you can just add nodes and split them where the bridge is and tag accordingly, rather than drawing over the existing road. This helps make sure a routing engine reads it as part of the continuous way.

Keep up the great work!

I'm sorry, but what specific changes are you referring to?

Now* off, rather :)

Hi Matthew- I noticed you recently made a lot of edits to streets around around Downtown Fort Worth. I'm not sure which imagery you were using, but the alignment of many of these roads are not off.

Please use the Mapbox Satellite for editing in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in the future. Thanks!

No review needed, accidentally checked box in JOSM :)

I'd say it has to do more with the concept of functional classification, or how the road functionally fits within a hierarchical network. But that's admittedly as ambiguous as our tagging scheme, so I think it'll be based on local knowledge. Frontage roads in Texas are a totally different animal (Texas turnarounds and all) than most other states.

No big deal though, I just thought I'd leave a comment before summarily changing since I saw you're pretty active

Hey Russell-

Could you explain your thinking on why this stretch of US-75 frontage was downgraded to highway=unclassified? Urban frontage roads basically serve as glorified arterial roadways here in the Dallas area, and they're almost all tagged with highway=secondary. This also makes this stretch discontinuous with the rest of the frontage to the north and south, so I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why this particular stretch should be demoted.

Thanks!

Andrew