Thank you for telling me this. I was not aware of this, and appreciate you explaining it to me. My sincerest apologies.

Good morning,

Apologies for mt delayed response.

I appreciate your explanation. Go ahead, just please make sure the added wooded areas aren't inadvertently deleted (I should have done those in a separate edit).

I sometimes find myself on the fence when it comes to whether a highway should be tagged as trunk or primary (even with the guidelines – sometimes it's in that "gray area," so-to-speak), and so I appreciate this feedback.

Hi John,

Yes, I can confirm this is the case. Personally I am of the opinion "trunk" is more appropriate after having previously viewed those pages and having traveled this tretch of road many times over the years, but you make very good points and support that argument. Perhaps those would be better for this stretch of NY 24 than "trunk". I may not get to it today, but I will make the changes to this stretch of NY 24 ASAP (you are welcome to, as well if you'd prefer).

Best,
FHP

Hello,

https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/

Apologies for forgetting to add the above source link to the feature tags.

Its shape was a mistake on my part – I have fixed the shape of that island. Thanks for pointing that out, I apologize.

Good evening,

I am pretty sure that I recall seeing them somewhere but I do not recall where (a long time ago) – or perhaps I am thinking of the Bethpage Bikeway (which is slightly east and does go all the way up). If you believe it would be more practical to have them tagged simply as foot paths for now, then I have no objection to that and apologize.

Cheers,
FHP

Hi,

Nothing to apologize for – I honestly really appreciate the time you took to teach me about all this. Thank you, and my apologies for my errors.

Cheers,
FHP

I was going strictly by aerial imagery (i.e.: seeing limited-access and dividers, along with shoulders. Feel free to revert if you believe trunk is the better tag.

Hi,

Thank you for reaching out (and for your other message). I changed the Central Westchester Parkway to trunk because it is a divided, limited access highway with exits and on and off ramps (and is grade-separated); it functions and is designed as a true trunk route/arterial highway. It is similar to the segments of the Bronx River Parkway in the area (albeit on a significantly smaller scale (although the early plans, believe it or not, called for the Central Westchester to be significantly longer than what was ultimately built)).

Also, I try not to ever go solely by NYSDOT data; I think that there are plenty of instances where what it states is debatable and is why judgement and careful consideration on the user's part are very important. My apologies for not making that more clear in my summary (I can see how it may come off as being unclear as to exactly what I meant).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122821115

Ok. Thanks for letting me know.

Hello,
Thanks for telling me. You make a great point and I think you might be right. Up to you.

Hello,

I am sorry for my errors. I had roadways turned off when adding the areas in order to prevent the land use and roadway nodes from connecting and I will be more careful going forward to map to the curb and not to the middle of the road in the area; I got confused as the different image overlays shift the image a bit and so I was unsure where to place them.

I truly and honestly did not know that about razed rail features; I knew about the lines former existence through local knowledge and that was why I added it. I will remember this going forward.

I can assure you that the last thing I want is to be a disruptive editor, and so I appreciate you letting me know all this.

Have a nice day.

Done. I have no idea what the ' sce = village_swing' tag was doing there. Thank you for letting me know.

Yes, I can definitely check that.

Just a follow-up: I have just fixed P. S. 98. Apologies again.

Thanks,
FHP

Hello,

I know what you mean and have been trying to disconnect them if I see them connected (and when I made these edits, I had roads switched off); I thought I disconnected them but maybe I missed a couple, and I will go through and fix them.

I honestly completely forgot about one feature, 1 OSM element; I will fix that with the school, as well.

In my opinion, showing a land use is very important – even if buildings are mapped; how would one know what the land use is when viewing just by looking at a generic gray square representing a building? There is no harm in having a land use area rendered, as far as I see it – and I honestly see it as adding value to a map. It helps a viewer to have a better understanding of the area – especially when you have a street grid where, on a map, retail/commercial/industrial and residential areas appear the same.

Again, I appreciate you reminding me about 1 feature, 1 OSM element; I will make that fix now and remember it going forward.

I hope this clears everything up.

Thank you, and have a good evening.

Thank you, I have been meaning to fix that. I will do so.

Fixed it.

Just fixed it.

Just fixed it. Thanks! Once again, sorry.