Hi, CurlingMan13!

According to the latest Lyft telemetry data (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VbMJ0cYPVZc03-Z-E992gKPnpH4UXuEX/view?usp=sharing ) the construction work seems to be completed. This is also confirmed by this article https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/local/odessa/first-of-three-i20-bridges-opens-to-motorists-this-week.html. So, I have removed the temporary ramps and construction-related tags, adjusted the ramp locations based on the TxDOT information (https://www.facebook.com/TxDOTOdessaTx/posts/309744041988988) and Lyft GPS tracks in the changeset changeset/152068894. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention and for your contribution!

Best regards,
Alexander

Hi, ElliottPlack! You're absolutely right - based on currently available Lyft-owned aerial and street-level imagery, these roads are part of a new townhome community, and the residential class would definitely fit better here. I corrected the highway tags in the changeset changeset/151755329 and applied the name for the road, which can be seen on the street sign in Lyft-owned photos(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ljT4fZ43QuZcuOJ6FY3tlY5vBXGGZah7/view?usp=sharing ). I apologize for this mistake and thank you for pointing it out!

Best regards,
Alexander

Hi gpserror and Dumb Street Mapper. Thank you for paying attention to our edits!

As Dumb Street Mapper mentioned, the road is currently under construction and was realigned in this changeset based on the most recent Lyft-owned aerial imagery and telemetry data available at the time. Here you can find a screenshot of the up-to-date telemetry data which still complements the current geometry - https://drive.google.com/file/d/19jnwZ4LhcrQlo_yHF6Cz_s0kr_khusKe/view?usp=sharing

I believe we will be able to detect when the construction is complete and update the geometry accordingly.

Best regards,
Alexander

Hi, Spaghetti Monster! Thank you for paying attention to this!

We have automated pipelines that detect driver activity that helps us to reopen roads in a short time after construction ends. Available telemetry data and recent street-level photos still show some road works along the street, however as far as I can see both carriageways are already open to traffic. So I reopened the closed road in the changeset/148325712

Thank you for your contribution!

Kind regards,
Alexander

Hi, Baloo Uriza! My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft.

If I interpreted the changeset data correctly, there were no geometry edits in this changeset, only tag updates, and the geometry of the link road was modified in changeset/114811451
However, thank you for your note, we will take into account your comment and will avoid such geometry changes in future. Please let me know if I missed anything.

Best regards,
Alexander

Hi, MxxCon! Thank you for paying attention to my edits!

You are definitely right, according to Bing street-level images these roads provide access to underground parking garages underneath the buildings and don’t comply with tunnel=building_passage definition of the OSM wiki. Since there’s not enough data to map underground roads, I have reverted my edits and added appropriate tags for parking entrance nodes in the changeset changeset/130031564

I apologize for this mistake and any inconvenience it may have caused. Please, let me know if I missed something while fixing this issue, I will definitely correct any inaccuracies.

Best regards,
Alexander

Hi, MxxCon! Thank you for your attention to our edits!

I consider this to be a rather controversial issue about how to properly map polygons. At one time we raised this question in the OSM community Slack https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1661266591802339, and haven’t come to a consensus .
And in practice, it is clear that in OSM there are different options for mapping polygons in the USA. My team and I are guided by our internal principles that are based on OSM wiki. We try to add the large areas and not to divide them in places, where the street is not so wide and it has retail/commercial properties with their related facilities on both sides. In our opinion the street could be considered as part of the surrounding area in such cases. But I do agree that it would be better to follow the single approach along the same street. I share your point of view that sidewalks shouldn’t be included in the landuse areas 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,
Alexander

Hi, Hans Thompson!
My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. Thank you so much for your positive feedback and your great contribution to OSM! Our team is really grateful for that.

Best regards, Alexander

Hi, erantr1! I am so sorry for providing unavailable links. I have fixed their access, so all of the links should work now. Also thanks to your comment, I found some mistakes while reviewing my edits. I fixed them in the changeset changeset/128427878.
Thank you for your contribution!

Best regards, Alexander

Hi, erantr1! My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. Thank you for the interest in our edits!

The geometry of the discussed intersection was updated based on the latest street-level photos and telemetry data we had at the time. As far as I can see, the configuration of this intersection has not changed since then in accordance with the newest aerial Nearmap imagery taken on Sep 2022 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lRk4gwMBx3qkKBGFuvnBY5CfLzEKqn_G/view?usp=sharing), Lyft telemetry data (https://drive.google.com/file/d/15dWhc-PFzlCXiEYHRrZ3BxOwwa3WKSjB/view?usp=sharing) and street-level imagery taken by Lyft’s drivers (photo from westbound direction of East Pecan St taken on 2022/06/14 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q5JpqVtP5e2Aj7Z5FlGZyLlVy1-3Q-oN/view?usp=sharing), photo from eastbound direction taken on 2022/10/26 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wgNM7z8iTkQnwoDdGWUNiUG0dPEtq3s8/view?usp=sharing). This information also coincides with Maxar's background.

So, according to the data above I suppose that the current geometry of the intersection corresponds to actual road conditions. Please, let me know if I missed anything, I will definitely correct my mistakes.

Kind regards, Alexander

Hi, oba510!
My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. Thank you for your attention to our edits and your great contribution to OSM!

In the discussed changeset oneway tag was removed from the segment of Arlington Ave according to the absence of left turn restriction sign at the Arlington Ave/Oberlin Ave intersection. Bing streetside photos shows that drivers make left turns at this intersection, Lyft internal telemetry data confirms it (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Th_xS1p8LL30HjTeM5Ah7pIFK9w-ZWNR/view?usp=sharing - red lines show the driver’s GPS tracks, blue line - suggested route by navigation software) as well. And, in addition, the intersection of Arlington Ave with Wellesley Ave has a “Right Turn Only” sign even if a left turn is obviously impossible here due to the physical barrier.

I understand that some drivers might make illegal maneuvers, but in my opinion there are no obstacles for a left turn here. This maneuver doesn’t require median crossing and it can be performed directly without complicated turns. But I do agree that the geometry of the intersection is not perfect and doesn’t reflect the left turn trajectory. To solve the problem I can suggest connecting Oberlin Ave with the pedestrian crossing node node/3180480692 to provide the correct trajectory of all the possible maneuvers from/to Oberlin Ave.

Please, let me know if I missed any details or came to wrong conclusions, I will definitely correct my mistakes.

Best regards, Alexander

Hi, wireguy!
My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. I’m sorry I missed the highway and boundary overlay here and broke the relation. Thank you so much for pointing that out!

The extra Lincoln Square relation’s member was removed in the changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/120167422 as well as incorrect tags from the boundary segments. Please, let me know if there are any issues with this changeset.

Best regards, Alexander

Hi, txemt!
My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. Thank you so much for your great contribution to OSM!

As far as I can see, the discussed changeset has only lanes tags updates for the segment without any changes of functional class of the road.
The editing history of the new segment was lost after the split due to the specifics of the OSM database. But I want to assure you that our team adheres strictly to local OSM editing rules, and we don't edit functional classes of the roads for no apparent reason especially in cases of dispute.

I reviewed the Lyft Mapping Team's edits in the Atlanta region in OSMcha and didn't find any cases with massive functional road classes editing. Absolute majority of our edits were connected with lanes tags and road geometry, so these edits require a lot of way’s splits and that is the reason why there are a lot of the roads identified as created by Lyft mappers.

I can guarantee that we don’t intend to modify Atlanta road classes without a corresponding decision of the OSM community. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Best Regards, Alexander

Hi, Spaghetti Monster!
My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. I am grateful for your interest in our edits.
Lyft OSM Team uses several data sources for map editing. These sources include proprietary features created by Lyft, specifically the street-level imagery from Lyft’s drivers taken during rides in various markets, together with drivers' GPS tracks. Unfortunately, we cannot provide the Lyft internal data for every OSM edit made by our Mapping Team but we're happy to disclose some of them in case of any specific interest, like in the mentioned request.

In this case, way/15188661 was removed according to the image from 2021/10/15, taken from I 35 freeway near former exit 180 location (29.6377207, -98.2155323) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfLIFCSHEFaQwImuEvkTRKMsuI_wmPQ3/view?usp=sharing. The photo shows the absence of an off ramp in this place. It also corresponds to Lyft drivers GPS tracks distribution in this location - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z0AtDIyUdAx8YwxuP4kliKZtv22b1jz-/view?usp=sharing. Near Map aerial imagery confirms the lack of the link road as well - https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kukY7mkdBvU2sAd7FFvLD0aBUzZ6Piw/view?usp=sharing.

The new exit 180 off ramp was opened at node/9485556347 location and the new motorway link was already added here by Lyft OSM Team in changeset/117106987.

I do hope I was able to provide sufficient data to review this edit.
Best Regards, Alexander

Hi, MxxCon!
Thank you so much for your positive feedback and your contribution to OSM! I greatly appreciate it.
Best regards, Alexander

Hi, Mateusz!

My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. We truly appreciate you paying attention to the lack of information on the Lyft mappers profiles. Thanks to your feedback, our mapping team has already added links from the user profiles to the Lyft OSM Wiki page (osm.wiki/Lyft) together with the link to the Lyft GitHub page (https://github.com/OSM-DCT-Lyft/US) with all the information connected to the Lyft OSM editing we have today. Also we will definitely make further updates of our documentation in order to fully comply with the OSM community guidelines. I want to assure you that Lyft’s Mapping team takes OpenStreetMap rules seriously, and I hope we can prove our good intentions. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.

Best regards, Alexander