Thank you!

Hey there! Looks like your recent changeset comment said "amend tags," but the changeset itself didn't actually update any tags. If you're using JOSM, there's a chance the comment was auto-filled from a previous edit. You can turn off this auto-fill feature by checking out these instructions: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Concepts/Changeset#Uploadcommentandotherchangesettags

For tips on writing better changeset comments, take a look at this wiki page: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping!

There appears to be a few problems in this changeset:

1. Way #15116037 for Amanda Circle was deleted, looks like middle segment of this road was deleted recreating two end segments with no change in geometry. Imagery suggests road still exists in entirety though it possibly should be classified as a land access road.

2. There are a number of other driveways and land access roads that were deleted entirely that didn't quite have the geometry accurate but based on imagery likely still exists at least in part: 15094711, 15094951, 15095309, 15096147, 15097295, 15101351, and 15102108.

Great work!

Hello thebestmapper90210,

I noticed your recent edit where the "amenity=school" tag was removed. This is the second time this change has been made, and it was previously reverted by another community member.

It's essential to understand that the removal of the "amenity=school" tag may lead to inaccurate information on the map. If you have a specific reason for this removal, please provide detailed justification or evidence so the community can understand the rationale behind your edit.

If you are uncertain about the tagging process or require further clarification, you can consult the OpenStreetMap Wiki or engage with the community in the discussion forums or via Slack.

Please ensure that future edits align with established mapping practices and community guidelines. Your contributions are valuable, and we encourage you to continue participating in the OpenStreetMap project.

Hi Artem, Thank you for the reply.

The oneway tag here has been reverted back and forth four to five times now. I see that lyft has had to come back to fix it more than once. I think there may be automated QA tools that are flagging it and causing drive by contributors to change it back to oneway.

I will solicit additional feedback from community on proposed change to ensure it is the optimal approach and best way to map this intersection. I’ll also see if I can confirm my suspicion about QA tool and if this needs to be raised with the maintainer of said tool.

If the proposed solution changes and it appears that it might benefit from further solicitation of input from Lyft, I’ll follow up with another comment on this changeset.

Best regards. :)

Hi Polina. Great to make your introduction. The wiki suggests two ways to map. The first is "put a node traffic_calming=island node on the road (especially if it's a small island),", like the example you provided, and the second is between the two lanes of a carriageway. Either method is equally acceptable though I think the first would be more beneficial here.

Hi Cameron Ford. Thank you for helping to keep this area updated as it undergoes heavy construction.

1. Can you confirm the sources you are using for the updates you are making since the imagery is out of date? Have you been out to survey in person recently by chance? If not, I'm happy to do so if that will be helpful.

2. I noticed you deleted the part of West William Cannon Drive north of 290 that is is being replaced. They should actually remain, with lifecycle tag updates as appropriate, until demolished (and probably until they don't show up on the default imagery for this area). See osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

3. It appears that you are sometimes deleting and recreating ways. Please do avoid this as much as possible to preserve history (I've noticed this in a number of changesets over time so let me know if you need me to provide some specific examples). See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

4. Relatedly, it appears that some routes need to be fixed now. I'm happy to help review and fix them with you.

If I've misunderstood anything or got anything above incorrect, please let me know.

FYI I'm usually available on OSM US Slack if you'd like to connect there.

Kudos again.

I see from history this intersection has bounced back and forth a few times in how it is being tagged. However it doesn't seem like we need or benefit to split the ways here in the first place. The island can just be mapped using a node on the way.

What do you think?

Hey there!

Good eye on noticing the basketball hoops around the edges of the southern tennis court bank.

Tagging the entire entire bank as leisure=pitch + sport=basketball caught my attention though instead of landuse=recreation_ground like the other bank.

I looked to the wiki and found something that might work well here. Check out the "Court without markings" section on this page (sport=basketball). It says we might want to just tag a node in this kind of scenario. I went looking for examples and found you've actually used that approach before such as in changeset/98478011.

Then we can tag the bank with landuse=recreation_ground to be consistent with the other.

What do you think?

Cheers!

Greetings. Thank you for your contribution.

I noticed that you set the number of lanes for the street you edited in this changeset to 1. Since this was your first edit, I assume this was unintended or you made the very common mistake of entering number of lanes per direction instead of total number of lanes for the highway. So the value here should be 2 and, as it approaches the north heatherwilde boulevard intersection, 3 instead of 1.

Would you be willing to make the necessary update to fix this? Let me know if not or if you have any questions. If yes, note that when lanes are not split evenly between directions on a bidirectional way, you'll use the tags lanes:backward and lanes:forward to indicate how many lanes per direction. See lanes=* for more info.

Greetings and thank you for your contributions.

Some feedback on this changeset:

1. Generally you would not map landuse on a block by block basis unless each block has in fact different landuse classification. Often the area mapped as landuse=residential is a meaningful contiguous residential area or alternatively may cover a particular residential neighborhood if it has a distinct identity and/or boundaries.

2. The name tag on an individually mapped tree is generally incorrect. It should not be used when the object is unnamed or only has a generic non-specific name.

3. Please try to keep edits localized to one particular area. Splitting up changes between distant geographical locations into separate changesets is a best practice.

I also recommend checking out the following wiki pages: osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions and osm.wiki/Good_practice

Based on some of your other recent changesets, I also want to encourage you to check out osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery - specifically info on offsets.

Welcome and thank you for your contributions.

When things change in the real world, editors are empowered to be bold and edit the map to reflect the current situation. But be aware that OpenStreetMap stores the editing history of an element and it is generally worth taking a few extra steps to help preserve this history. For example, instead of deleting elements such as buildings or landuse and redrawing them anew, it is generally better to update the geometry of the existing objects, retaining their editing history.

See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history for more informaton.

You mapped the sidewalk along section of Lee Dildy Boulevard twice. Also, there is no low water crossing here.

Thank you for your contributions.

Parts of this edit related to 290 have been reverted due to incorrectly introducing links for turn lanes as previously described on another changeset. Please kindly let me know if you've received this note and if you have any questions.

Hi there. A parking lot should be mapped as a contiguous area (see One feature, one OSM element) as much as possible. You can include in the area parking aisles and footways between parking spaces. Any greenery such as grass strips or trees can also be included within the parking area.

Individual parking rows should not be mapped as separate parking areas.

Please see amenity=parking

I've noticed this issue in changeset #1176912856 and #136427303 as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions, to let me know if I'm missing something, or if you need any help in correcting this.

(Otherwise, the standard method to draw parking of a complex size - ones that consists of disjointed areas, or because the area consists of multiple disjunct parts, or has holes is to use multipolygons.)

You've accidentally mapped the entire Circle Brewing Company Farm area as a building floating in the air. I've gone ahead and fixed this for you.

3. Additionally, comparing the geometry of the houses mapped in this changeset (and older changesets authored by you in this area) to the aerial photography used, rectangular buildings should be mapped as rectangular. By pressing 'q' or right clicking and then clicking square from popup menu you can have the iD editor automatically help square up your polygon.

I wanted to bring to your attention an issue I identified while reviewing this change. Let me know if you have any questions or if I misunderstood anything.

1. The _link tags are used to identify slip roads/ramps and "channelised" (most commonly physically separated) at-grade turning lanes connecting the through carriageways/through lanes of highways to other roadways. Normal turn lanes without channelisation should not have a separate way drawn at all. If a link had been appropriate, classification should be the highest of the two ways typically. In this changeset, you used a higher classification then both ways.

2. If you map sidewalks separately, it is a good practice to tag the corresponding highway to indicate such. e.g. sidewalk:both=separate if you map sidewalks on both sides of the highway separately.

Thank you for your contribution!

Looks good to me!