I did miss that part. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll keep this in mind going forward.

I would like to point out though, that you made changes without first discussion those changes with the community and waiting for a decision which the DWG as well as other community members told you you have to do before making changes. I left your ref change on the link but fixed the classification since that doesn't change. The natural transition from primary to secondary happens at that intersection, not the link.

Please refrain from making any changes without first getting approval from the local community.

And thank you for pointing at that section on the article.

Ref tags aren't commonly used on *_link roads. The tag [destination:ref=*](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination:ref) is used instead, as it indicates where the link leads rather than what the link itself is.

CO 340 extends to the intersection and turns right because that is the main highway. A link (slip road) is just a [connection](osm.wiki/Highway_link#:~:text=the%20linking%20way%20is%20not%20the%20main%20line%20of%20either%20of%20the%20highways%20being%20linked%20but%20forms%20the%20connection%20between%20them) between two highways, not the main highway itself. I've reverted the tags to the previous version to keep it aligned with the wiki guidelines.

Why are you changing street names that have fractions in them? Did you use a specific source to confirm they were written that way?

There's a street sign for F 1/2 Road here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.09904219997199&lng=-108.47785949997001&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=1341192023039605&x=0.39253343336649904&y=0.4305074396092258&zoom=1.6890601589255136 that confirms it was written as it is on the sign before you changed it.

F 1/4 Road was fixed by a local editor once because someone made the same change you did and you reverted their edit seen here: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/16998507. Why did you change it?

Please refrain from making edits without first consulting with the local community.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184244034

May I ask why you made these changes to "F Road" and "Patterson Road"? What source did you use? If you checked the area for Mapillary you would see that your name changes are incorrect. Patterson ends at 31 Road which can be seen here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.0918575&lng=-108.47825645477997&z=18.73858273777371&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=2046420189286556&x=0.7000655745246825&y=0.5104402897733032&zoom=0.6678360891124431 and F Road starts at that point which can be confirmed with the street sign at the next intersection here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.091823897310434&lng=-108.4758595557513&z=18.73913112617126&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=948125487953517&x=0.6931240199597075&y=0.5132472815755722&zoom=0.6678360891124431. "F" is the ref that was given to the entire stretch by the city so why did you remove it and add it as an alt_name?

Please refrain from making edits in this area without first consulting with the local community.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184243619

I did see that you reverted some of Flaps changes SD Mapman. Thank you for that.

In regards to the "Grand Army of the Republic" name change. That is something that should've been discussed either on the OSM Forum or the OSM US Slack because its nationwide and affects multiple communities. I saw that you also incorrectly added "Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway" as the street name for parts of "US 6 & 50" as can be seen here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.11335200745302&lng=-108.64940846262999&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=884343990641540&x=0.37189943923430735&y=0.5107448552082803&zoom=0. This is another name that belongs on the route relation. I saw that you changed the name of the "Grand Army of the Republic" route to "Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway" and SD reverted that change. Please stop adding these names to the highways without consulting the local communities. These names belong on the routes, not the main highway.

Visiting a place does not count as local knowledge. That's a survey. A local would be able to confirm their edits with mapillary or a government source that's usable in OSM. Since this changeset spans across two states its unlikely that this was part of a survey. For future edits please keep them smaller in both size and area so the data stays relevant to the place you are working.

Baconcrisp

I appreciate the response. I checked this morning and none of your edits were reverted like you said. Thank you providing your source for the "Grand Army of the Republic" changes, but you neglected to share your source for the other changes you made in this changeset. I would like to see your source for ALL of your changes in this changeset if you please so I can verify each one. You modified multiple relations, deleted multi-polygons, changed POI tags, modified ref information, modified names, etc. These changes span from Utah to Colorado. Please share your sources for all of these changes.

You also never answered my question about whether or not you consulted with the local communities before making these changes so I'll ask again. Did you consult with these two communities before making these changes?

Baconcrisp

What resource did you use to make these name changes? Did you consult with the local community before making these changes. From what I've most of your changes are incorrect and need to be reverted.

Please link the resource(s) you used and consult with the local community before making any changes on this scale.

Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180334382

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