Thank you for the explanation. Whereas it is good to preserve historical information, this tag probably could be removed altogether since the street no longer exists.

If you want to preserve this information you can add it to OpenHistoricalMap instead of creating a new tag.

I double checked and there are traffic lights at that intersection which can be seen in available Mapillary(2018) and in Bing satellite imagery(2024). Do you have a more recent verifiable source to confirm this intersection has changed? This is a standard model for these types of intersections in Utah.

I did read your proposal, but its relevance wasn't clear. What you proposed can already be described with current classifications and tags. I also could find your proposal mentioned on the forum or mailing list which is required according to the Proposal Process guidelines here: osm.wiki/Proposal_process. If you really think your proposal has merit you need to follow the guidelines on that page so the community can help you improve it and vote on it.

I understand that part. My question was why you changed the "old_name=*" to a tag you made? The old_name tag was correct as it was.

Hello Flap,

Can you explain why you changed the tag "old_name=*" to "street:old_name=*"? There's no information regarding this tag on the wiki and the only use cases are in this changeset.

What is the purpose of this tag?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173459509

Hello Flap,

I have a question about your tagging. of this stretch of road. According to the wiki, this shouldn't be classified as a motorway since there's an intersection with traffic signals on it which means it would most likely be a trunk or lower.

I also looked into your proposed tag, but didn't quite understand its purpose. Was this discussed on the community forum or somewhere else as mentioned on the Proposal Process wiki pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Mandatory_announcements? I'd be interested to learn more about its purpose and its relevance to the map.

Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173561358

No worries. Thank you for the quick response and fix!

Happy mapping!

Hello Camello_AR!

Can I ask why you changed the oneway tag from "yes" to "no" on this secondary? Based on the imagery and surrounding data context this way should be a oneway since the ways leading to/from this piece are also oneways.

As it is now, routing will be partially confused since there is a bi-directional road in-between two oneways that lead to the motorway.

Will you please fix this when you get a chance?

Thanks,
Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171112437

Thank you for the quick response. It looks like the plugin I was using assumed the curb was a blocking barrier which caused the "issue". That was my mistake for not noticing that.

The interns tagging scheme is a little odd so if you're alright with it I would like to offer to help tag it correctly as well as offer you assistance with mapping. I work for a local mapping company called Kaart. We have various training materials as well as a team of experienced mappers that can help you out. If that's something you're interested in, just let me know!

Thanks again for the quick response!

Baconcrisp

Hello GJCity,

I had a question regarding you cycleway tagging. It looks like you're trying to improve routing for both cycleways and pedestrians, but how you've tagged the "trails/sidewalks" actually breaks routing in a few places like at crossings. Here's an example(way/630654779). If you check routing for this spot using the Graph View plugin in JOSM and set the parameters to either bicycle or pedestrian you see that there is a break in routing on either side of this crossing.

Could you please explain your tagging and what materials you used to tag these features in this way?

Baconcrisp

Hello AngocA,

This account is no longer active so I’ll do my best to answer your questions on their behalf.

It looks like the dragged node in changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=167071198 was a mistake made by a different user(SoyJosueVerde) who later fixed that mistake: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/250455168.

As for your question regarding the IDECA licensing, it looks like we were using an older, open source version of the data from 2017 which we deemed usable in OSM. Is this no longer the case and if so do you know if this data will be usable in OSM in the future?

Baconcrisp

Hello Sai Aaryan,

Great job on adding these buildings! I have a few tips to help you improve your edits.

Remember to draw each building to the building footprint while also using the hotkey "Q" to square it to make it as accurate as possible.

As for the tags, the "landuse=residential" tag should be drawn as a separate area around the neighborhood. You currently have this tag on each building you've added which is incorrect.

Please let me know if you have any questions and happy mapping!

Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160046084

Why did you change this from a route_master to a route_network? I can't find documentation for a route_network tag anywhere on the wiki and it has only been used once which is this case. See taginfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=route_network#overview

What is the purpose of this tag and where can I find documentation for it?

Baconcrisp

Thank for finding this mistake and correcting it! I'll be sure to double check my edits in the future. Thanks again!

Baconcrisp

Hello Erick,

This account is no longer active so I looked into your question on their behalf. I couldn't find anything to indicate "access=no" on that way so I removed the tag.

Thank you for finding this!

Baconcrisp

Hey f_husni,

This account is now inactive so you're welcome to update/fix anything of theirs you find while editing!

Baconcrisp

You're welcome! I'm happy to help where I can!

Hello Mateusz,

LSkalayo's account is no longer active, but I'm happy to answer your question. You are correct! I believe they meant to tag it as "amenity=place_of_worship" and "religion=christian", but tagged it incorrectly by mistake. I'll update this POI with the correct tags.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

Sincerely,
Baconcrisp

Hello,

This account is currently inactive so I looked into this on their behalf.

Your first link brought up an area so I'm not sure which road your question was about? I modified the second one to better match what is visible in imagery.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention and let me know if you have any further questions!

Baconcrisp

Hello erickdeoliveiraleal,

This editors account is currently inactive so I looked into your question on their behalf. I agree that this way doesn't exist so I removed it!

Thank you for bringing this to our attention!

Baconcrisp

Hello IKYuda! I noticed you've been updating classifications according to this: https://binamarga.pu.go.id/index.php/peraturan/detail/keputusan-menteri-pekerjaan-umum-dan-perumahan-rakyat-nomor-367kptsm2023-tentang-rencana-umum-jaringan-jalan-nasional-2020-2040. I was wondering if you could also update the appropriate links as you upgrade the classifications? Another thing that would be very useful for other editors working here would be to document your project on the Indonesian country wiki page here: osm.wiki/Indonesia. That way they can see what you're doing and can review your source for themselves. Thank you for your contributions in updating the map!

Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146656686