Hi Scarapella,

Sounds like a good change to make; I was trying to untangle the stream from the lake itself and when looking for documentation I must've missed the waterway=flowline tag. In lieu of that, I had trimmed it down to the most basic tags which seemed accurate without superimposing the stream onto the lack though clearly I made an error there. Apologies for the obtuse tagging.

Best,
SwampYankee

Hi HLD317.

This discussion was scattered across a number of interactions between individual mappers, however I was recommended to forward you to this thread on the OSMUS Slack team (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C6E4S4CQG/p1777661542940159?thread_ts=1777647840.892859&cid=C6E4S4CQG) for further context as this remains an ongoing topic of discussion. To clarify my original comment since I recognize it may have been somewhat vague, the approach taken by most local mappers is to only tag a driveway/parking lot intersection w/ a crossing if the sidewalk is interrupted by that path. In the case of the Clifton intersections, the sidewalk is uninterrupted and so the crossing tag is not applied, however if the driveway were to break the sidewalk such that the sidewalk is clearly secondary to the road (see Campus Ave and University Circle along Clifton Ave), then the crossing tag would be used. I would like to invite anyone from Meta who is engaging in mapping around Cincinnati to join the #local-cincinnati channel on the OSMUS Slack network as we are actively organizing local Cincinnati mappers to coordinate standards beyond individual discussions.

Hi VLD317,

I wanted to open a discussion about your edits to Clifton, specifically the nodes at a number of driveways. While it's a matter of debate in the larger community, from what discussion has been had there is an agreement among local Cincinnati mappers is that driveways and alleyways should not be tagged with crossings. Given the crossing tag would implicate specific laws on jaywalking and intersection traffic which do not apply to these routes as they are uninterrupted sidewalks, I believe it is best that these tags not be applied. Additionally, these junctions do not have any structural elements which would be consistent with crossings.

Hi AngMapper. I apologize but I reverted your previous edit to Rawson Woods. The woods are not a park, it's a bird preserve and public access is not permitted here, as such the park tag should not be applied to it. https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cincyparks/visit-a-park/find-a-parkfacility/rawson-woods-nature-preserve/

Looks solid! Think this is a good compromise between intended and practical function.

Opening a discussion: I went hiking here recently and found that OSM client apps like AllTrails show this area as part of the lake because of the tagging. Given how exceptionally rare it is that the spillway is used, I think it would be best to either remove the water tags, or remove the area entirely to prevent confusion. While it is technically correct, I don't think tagging this area as an intermittent canal is the best reflection of its use; This is a popular hiking and sightseeing spot with a major road and parking lot which, from my searching, has never seen any instance of being flooded since its creation.