Hey there Brody. Thanks for contributing to OSM. Your changes are appreciated by those of us in the community and the many others that won't even realize that work people like you have put in.

I wanted to correct a mapping thing that I've seen you do in a couple of places though so that the mistake doesn't continue. If you look at a cul-de-sac (way/885699737 for instance) there is only one cul-de-sac there and you have made each driveway connecting to that cul-de-sac it's own cul-de-sac, which is incorrect. There should only be one cul-de-sac node at the center. And the road shouldn't draw a loop around it since there isn't anything physically on the ground that would force that path. The way it was originally drawn was correct (though I'm not sure the focal node was actually labelled a cul-de-sac as it should be).

Would you like to clean this up yourself or leave others like myself to do it for you? I'm happy either way.

Hi Brian,
Is there a reason way/867908019 circles 3 or 4 times? I'm going to clean that up. Hope that doesn't break what you were intending.

Hello Stayton. I have cleaned up the multi-polygon that defines the boundary for the city in changeset changeset/95709857. Could you please have a look and make sure if it still defines things correctly. As I read your additions (thanks for the additions BTW!) it looks like there are two non-city sections in town. If that is correct then I have defined the polygon to exclude those areas by labeling them as "inner". Let me know and I'll help in fixing things if needed.

Hope you are well and avoided the fires this summer.

Hello drsgis. Are these being drawn by hand or imported? There are a couple of problems. The first is that none of the buildings are very "square", meaning that what should probably be a 90 degree angle often isn't. I don't have the latest satellite imagery, but history would show this to be rare in construction. The second problem is that many of the ways contain duplicate nodes, meaning that there are two consecutive nodes that have the same exact lat/lon data, which is undesirable. It might be that ArcGIS is buggy in which case I'd like to follow up with them, or it could be that you're importing data that has duplicates and you should clean up your data before you import (assuming you have more imports to do in the future, that is).

Credit really goes to GoColeGo. I just made a minor edit.

Hi Raistlfiren, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. It looks like your GPX file had some anomalies in it that led to some nodes being far away from their actual location. Maybe your GPS was on the fritz that day?

You should also note that the Lower Trails way shouldn't double back on itself when mapping because it isn't topologically correct. There isn't a separate path, it is just reusing the same path, therefore you should only draw the trail once in that area.

Let me know if you want help in fixing either of these problems.

See highway=construction for what I think might be the appropriate tag. If there is zero visible work being done yet, look at the proposed key (proposed=*) instead.

You might want to read the page osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer as well.

These are just my thoughts. Feel free to discuss further. There is also the tagging mailing list or the #tagging channel on Slack if you want to chat with others that have more knowledge than I on the topic.

Hello gadoidé and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see that you have made a bunch of changes in the area, but you have described the set of changes as simply "Hawaii". Can you be a little more descriptive in the future so others looking at your change can understand the intent. For example I found way/865152118 was created, but I can't tell if it was part of the house/building, or a path around the building. We shouldn't have paths drawn out with no information about the purpose of them. If you need any guidance, please let me know.

Hi Jón, can you elaborate on what you mean by "(gone)"? Have the trails been bulldozed over and no longer exist, or are they still there but closed to the public? There are more appropriate tags to use than changing the name to append "gone". (If they truly no longer exist, let me know and I'll help you discover the correct tags. Thanks.)

It looks like way/878064961 was listed as a "building" but it seems like it might have been meant to be something else. Would you like to have a look?

Oops. Got sloppy and reused previous changeset description. Ignore this. There are no hydrants to see out here.

Hello Long_496,

I needed to revert this change because it moved a couple of nodes that were part of roads and that moved made the roads be out of whack. Let me know if you need help replacing your changes.

My robot didn't *modify* anything about the street address. Could you modify your notification robot to make sure the person that last edited the object that happens to have a problem with the address format is only notified if they are modifying the address? Thanks.

Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation and tagging fix @jhmeniscus. It made me remember days of playing Nerf football in our cul-de-sac when I was a kid. We would have loved to have had a real grid laid out.

Hi there baradam, I came across several features that you've mapped that are similar in style to relation/5587666 where you make use of other ways, or parts of other ways in order to define a multipolygon relation to make up a different feature. I reached out to the OSM community on Slack and they all seem to agree that it would be better if those relation polygons were instead a separate way, leaving the other ways to be whatever they are supposed to me.

Would you have any objection to me making those changes when I come across it, or do you have some strong feelings or arguments to keeping the style that you've mapped with?

Thanks.

Thanks wwhide for fixing up the paths. I've changed the building=yes to be building=roof to indicate there are no walls. Does that sound good to you?

Cool. I kind of thought that might have been the case. Thanks.

Hi QuintB, can you tell me what this way is supposed to be? way/844353376

It doesn't have any tags.

>Apparently, @b-jazz seems to understand why I have reverted your changesets. Well, maybe because @b-jazz is more experienced than you are? Or, maybe because @b-jazz thinks before he/she acts?

@GITNE, please don't take my discussion for what I think is likely a better way to handle mapping of addresses as condoning your abusive behaviour towards another mapper. I don't.

If there is a community standard of how to map "correctly", I have yet to be shown the discussion and buy-off and publication of it. And if anyone ever inadvertently goes astray of those published guidelines, I'd hope that you do a better job of educating them in the future and fostering an environment of cooperation and community.

That’s unfortunate and that tone is uncalled for. I’m sorry to see that you were on the receiving end of it.

I do like the style of putting addresses of multi-unit structures on entrance nodes instead of a separate nodes in the middle of the building. If 99.9% of the mapping isn’t done in that style, it doesn’t mean that the style isn’t the desired one going forward, so I wouldn’t use that excuse personally since you’ve got to start somewhere. I’d also like to see where this was discussed and agreed on with the community. The claim of it having to do with the “OSM data model” Doesn’t make any sense to me.