Hello, Citrula.
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your question. Indeed, there are some polygons here that, in my opinion, could be removed, but we don’t have sufficient evidence. The main purpose of the changeset was to correct the road geometry; I also adjusted the polygons that intersect the ways. And, in general, I didn’t plan to edit anything else here.
Please feel free to fix other objects in this area.

Best regards, Ruslan

Hello, ElliottPlack.
Thanks for your suggestion. Probably we will consider adding such objects in our future projects. But at the moment adding buildings is not in our scope, we are more focused on traffic roads.
Best regards, Ruslan

Hello, MxxCon.
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your question. Indeed two objects that indicate strictly retail or commercial areas are located in the selected zone. According to OSMWiki (landuse=retail), gas stations are a sign of “landuse=retail” (because they sell goods here), and (landuse=commercial), car service centers are a sign of “landuse=commercial” (because they provide services here). I have come to the conclusion that the most appropriate value would be retail area guided by the article about the fuel stations (amenity=fuel#The_entire_area_of_the_gas_station) that says "Use landuse=retail for the entire area of ​​the gas station". It is also worth noting that despite the presence of the “building=industrial” tag on the car service center, I wouldn’t mark the landuse zone as “industrial”, because no goods are produced here (landuse=commercial).
Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards, Ruslan

Hello, MxxCon.
Thank you for raising this up! Unfortunately, there are no clear rules for mapping polygons. Nevertheless, you may be right there, my team and I apologize for not paying enough attention to unnecessary pavement overlap in cases where the retail/commercial properties have clear borders. So we definitely will reconsider our approach about mapping landuse polygons of such properties.

Best regards, Ruslan

Hello, Hans Thompson.
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. In this changeset, I’ve added some parking service roads near Bailey's Furniture way/793940103 and slightly corrected geometry of some roads on the parking lot that you recently mapped on this commercial area way/813938022 based on Bing Aerial Maps and proprietary telemetry data. Addition of service roads where it serves primarily for parking is a pretty common practice in OSM. Could you please clarify what, in your opinion, is exactly wrong with the mapping of those roads. I would be very grateful for any explanation that could help me to understand your point in this case.

Best regards, Ruslan

Hello, Minh Nguyen.
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. The OSMwiki does not clearly distinguish between the application of "access=no" and "access=private" tags (access=no, osm.wiki/RU:Tag:access%3Dprivate). Both restrict access to the general public, however "access=no" restricts "stronger". The OSMwiki gives "military or government facilities" as examples of "access=no" usage. It is also recommended to set "access=no" if there are certain barriers at the entrance to the prohibited territory.
As for the "access=private" tag, the articles do not suggest such recommendations as the presence of a barrier or a high "status" of the territory, and most often a simple road sign is enough to use this tag (for example, employee-only parking).
From our point of view, in airports a fenced area with thorns and “restricted area” signs (https://dropmefiles.com/PWMk9) is more like "military or government facilities". Because it shows that being there is illegal, dangerous, subsequent punishments in the form of a fine, or even arrest. We consider these are accessible arguments in favor of putting "access=no" inside such fenced areas.
Of course, I agree with you that "access=no" prohibits access even for airport employees. On the other hand, there are driver-employees everywhere even at military bases that can physically be, drive and work on prohibited roads.
Thank you for paying attention to this. We really appreciate your suggestions. By the way, what is the difference between "private=staff" and "private=employees" that you applied in the changeset for identical neighboring roads?

Please let me know if you have any further questions or insights that could help me to understand your point in this case.

Best regards, Ruslan

Hello, willkmis.
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for raising this up! You are absolutely right again.
I genuinely apologize for our repeated mistake with this tricky turn restriction. I have added the road that was missing, the entry to which is prohibited by the sign and moved the turn restriction there to avoid another possible iteration of this erroneous edit. changeset/124442556
Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you again.
Best regards, Ruslan

Ok, I’ll keep that in mind next time, thanks again for sharing this information.
Best regards, Ruslan.

Hello, Dr Kludge.
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for raising this up!
As you have already correctly identified, I made the edit based on images with road signs (exactly as in the link you provided). In the vast majority of cases, such signs contain the real names of the elements of the road network, and these names serve for correct navigation and orientation of drivers.
The map at https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/ScottsdaleAZ/Transportation/StreetClassificationMap.pdf, where this road is labeled as Scottsdale Road, was also used as supporting evidence to make the edit.
As I see, you have already returned the former name of the road. With respect to your experience in the Phoenix metropolitan area, I trust your knowledge and accept your point.
Many thanks for raising this up with the detailed explanation of your vision. Our team appreciates this greatly.
Best regards, Ruslan.

Hello, MxxCon.
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this.
According to the articles about roundabouts junction=roundabout and circulars junction=circular in OSMWiki, we assume that
the tag “junction=roundabout” is used only on road intersections where traffic on the roundabout has right of way,
and
the tag “junction=circular” is used only on road intersections where traffic on the junction does not have complete right of way.
In one of the segments of our road ring (way/276545921#map=19/40.56907/-73.86755), we have a "yield" regulatory sign and a "give way" road marking for drivers who ride on the ring, which means that our junction does not have complete right of way.
These attributes of a circular intersection we can see in Bing Streetside
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=40.569197~-73.867809&lvl=17&dir=238.365&style=x&v=2&sV=1, Bing Aerial Imagery, Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta. Also exactly at this point OSM already has a "yield" (highway=give_way) sign at the node. (node/278222634).
Please correct me if I’m missing something, I will be happy to discuss further.
Best regards, Ruslan.

Hi, skquinn!
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
You are absolutely right and from my part, I want to assure you that the connection between the way/908698469 road and the way/15456661 road was unintentional. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Best regards, Ruslan

Hi, MxxCon!
My name is Ruslan, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Since we are a rideshare company, proper routing is important for us, and the “barrier=kerb” and “kerb=raised” tags at the intersection of “highway=footway” and “highway=residential” block navigation for vehicles.
According to the articles about crossings crossing=* and kerbs barrier=kerb in OSMWiki, “For routing, it is important that barrier=kerb + kerb=* should not be on the crossing node that intersects with the road”. These tags should be at the nodes at their actual location, and not at the intersection with the highway line, as on this picture osm.wiki/File:Marked_crossing_example.png
More examples with barriers=kerb
1. node/5084999520
2. node/8558504201
3. node/5760830486
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns, I’ll be happy to discuss
Thank you,
Ruslan.