By the way, why do you split sidewalks ways into multiple redundant segments? I've been merging these together when I see them, but I can stop doing that if there's a good reason to keep the extra ways.

(At the intersection of Lake City Way and Northgate Way, that is).

Hello again! This changeset removes a new curb ramp and reverts updated crossing alignments. The city rebuilt most of the crossings along Lake City Way. I've been working on correcting the alignment and details in these areas.

I apologize--I didn't notice that you stopped using the traffic_signals:sound tag. I must have clicked on an older element while reviewing this changeset (which looks good to me). Sorry for the confusion!

I removed some traffic_signals:foot tags when converting a few crossings to the crossing=traffic_signals scheme since it looks like both tags imply the same thing, and crossing=traffic_signals is much more widely used. If traffic_signals:foot has a different meaning or use, you may want to document the tag in the wiki so that others don't accidentally remove it as well.

By the way, the city is currently tearing up and rebuilding many of the sidewalks, curb bulbs/ramps, and signals along Greenwood Ave N. Unfortunately, I see that you already mapped most of the road, but I will try to capture some new street level imagery if you want to update those details.

Thanks again for the edits!

Hello! Seattle has not implemented request buttons and sound signals at every signalized crossing. No need to add these tags unless you're sure. I've fixed a few of these, but it's easier to keep track of what needs to be resurveyed when the tags are not already present.

In a similar vein, I think it's worth keeping crossing=traffic_signals on highway=crossing nodes instead of changing these to crossing=marked. On-the-ground surveying tools like StreetComplete will ask mappers to confirm buttons, sound signals, and vibration feedback for crossing=traffic_signals only. We don't get that tagging assistance for crossing=marked, so changing these may increase the difficulty of maintaining those crossing details.

Thanks for the edits, and let me know what you think!

I think it's technically a cycleway=track from Lake City Way to Cowen Pl NE at the south end of the bridge (except for the segments approaching/departing the larger arterial intersections where the bollard rows end--if you feel like mapping at that level of detail).

The distinction is kinda cloudy without a solid barrier, but you can see the difference between the cycleway types on 15th Ave south of Cowen Pl NE where the cycleway becomes a bare lane adjacent to traffic and also northbound where the cycleway is well-protected from vehicles as a passage between the designated street-side parking lane and the sidewalk. People aren't supposed to drive over the noodle bollards, but I've downgraded a track to a lane along a road where cars have all but destroyed the separation.

Anyway, thanks for the updates. I took a video survey of the updated construction here but never got around to tagging. Glad to see it on the map!

Thanks for the reply. No objections here--I'm all for keeping the history. Just want to make sure that I do it right next time!

On that note, how does one un-delete a feature? I've felt the urge to do so when I see address deletions, but I couldn't figure out how to restore the nodes. Is that JOSM territory?

Just curious...too close to the road? I placed the post box right on top of the location visible on imagery (aligned to Bing). I think I also see that I should have merged the old one into the new one instead, right?

Sorry, that link wasn't formatted properly. Here's the intended page: osm.wiki/Key%3Adisused%3A

Hello! Thanks for the updates. When editing a closed shop, please keep the address information on the nodes (remove the other business-related tags as needed).

If the physical feature still exists, but no tenant occupies the space, we can change the "shop" tag to "disused:shop" to capture the current state. These conventions preserve routing data and make it easier for other mappers to update the shop when a new business moves in.

For more info, please read: disused=*:

Let me know if you have any questions!

Cool, thanks for the update!

Heh, couldn't say. Thanks for the reply!

Hello! I noticed that you answered "no" for "lit" on a few sidewalk/road segments on N 115th St. Aerial imagery shows those segments directly under street lamps. Just curious... are those lamps broken? Might be able to put in a request to get them fixed. Thanks

Thanks for the advice. I'm pretty new to OSM (and not a StreetComplete developer myself), so please don't feel any obligation to respect my tags! I've tried to follow the wiki and existing conventions in the area while mapping sidewalks, but I agree... the approach that I've seen for driveway crossings never seemed right. Is it really acceptable to start using something like "crossing=driveway" for these instances? The practice of drawing "crossing=unmarked" on driveways/parking entrances seems so widespread that it may take a coordinated effort to switch all of these. It appears as if StreetComplete is pretty conservative about implementing undocumented tags, so I suppose I should follow your lead and ignore these crossings in the app.

F-Droid looks like it hosts v43.2 as of 5/20. I didn't mean for my comment to come across as a nag... just wanted to pass it along so that it wouldn't cause you the trouble that it gave me.

Hello, you may want to update StreetComplete to v43.1+ to avoid adding barrier=kerb back to kerb=no nodes. See https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/3983

Perhaps "access=destination"?

Hello again! The signage for that skinny asphalt corridor next to the main bus loop at the station suggests that the lane is public access for cars, taxis, ride-shares, etc. A sign reads, "Passenger pick-up and drop-off only. No parking anytime. Tow away zone." An emblem on the station map seems to imply this as well. I don't think it's for bus use.

Heh, I'll leave the relation alone, then...too little to fuss about :) I applied your suggestions in changeset/120761250. Thanks again for the advice!

While I have your eyes... I couldn't figure out how to drop the multipolygon relation from the west building without deleting the feature and killing the change history. Any way to do this without making a new area? Just wanted to clean that up. Maybe I need to learn how to use JOSM at this point...

You're right, of course. I went back and forth about whether to include "mall" in the name. I like your recommendation much more. Still learning how to tag things properly, so I'll see if I can manage to give your suggestion a go. Would you draw the area "hugging" the buildings? Or pad it with some offset around them? Thanks for the review.