In my very best leisure suit!🕺If I'd worn my tutu they might've let me in ;)

Hello epc5427 -- Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I've reverted this changeset and the subsequent (changeset changeset/132381679) because these changes to the map don't seem to be based on real-world data.

Please be aware that OSM is a real map used by millions of real people. Its accuracy depends on the efforts of volunteers across the globe, working hard to keep it up to date. Imaginary information does not have a place here.

In the future, please edit the map based only on data you personally know to be true.

Thanks, Jmapb

reverted (along with 132380794) in changeset/132389585, see comments in changeset/132380794

Thanks, I have some reading to do...

Has this been publicly discussed and documented anywhere? Standard OSM practice is to add different names in separate tags rather than using semicolon delimiters in `name=`.

Note that this sadly-now-deleted user_6771650 was the mapper who originally appended the Yiddish name under `name=` in changeset/89997354, then added a language-specific `name:yi` tag in changeset/89997391. This looks less like vandalism and more like a mapper with local knowledge learning how to tag correctly over time.

Howdy... I took a peek at this place yesterday and I really don't think the East 21st side should get an address at all. There was an entrance there, but it's padlocked shut with a metal grate welded over it, and the fence gate in front of that is chained shut as well.

I think you're right that this is all a single building now. I've joined the two sides and removed the 138 East 21st address.

Cheers, J

I'm not convinced of the wisdom of adding all of these tiny dual carriageway sections just to draw the traffic islands. The islands can be mapped as nodes, which might not be as satisfying from a micromapping point of view but is less error-prone, easier to draw, comprehend, and maintain.

That said, in situations where a dual carriageway is necessary, please make sure to consider the routing implications where the dual ways merge into the single way. They will nearly always need a "only_straight_on" restriction like relation/14113975 to prevent using the junction for u-turns. This is especially important in intersections like this one that forbid left turns -- currently OSM is recommending something very illegal: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=40.68373%2C-73.97661%3B40.68345%2C-73.97700

Thanks, J

Thanks. I marked it access=private based on the map at https://nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/maps/worthington-area.pdf

Do you know if the situation is the same on these three unmaintained trails, which are not on private property?
way/802758925
way/802758926
way/802759884

Apologies for the late followup... after seeing no action from Lyft on reverting these landuses, I did the reversions last month in the following changesets, one per borough: 129445164, 129446460, 129450557, 129451968, and 129456834. I left in place some landuses that had already been fixed by local mappers (in Staten Island, IIRC)

Hello WSfsupt, I'm doing some trail mapping and have some questions about the trails you've closed in Worthington, can I ask you here?

Thanks, J

Hi jgroth, is this old trail section legally closed (hiking prohibited), or just unmaintained and overgrown?

Thanks, do you recall where this imagery is from?

Thanks, is this signage that you surveyed or from groundlevel imagery?

HI snake21 aka SH17... what's the source for your changes in this area? I can see you're using Bing aerial imagery, but what about the access values and speed limits?

Hi Edward -- you tagged the node node/357581770 with wikidata item Q34855962 but this park already has Q7304317 (tagged on relation/13920588 ). Can you merge Q34855962 into Q7304317?

Thanks, Jason

Thank you for the reply skudrashou.

First I'd like to extend my appreciation to you & your team for your excellent work on the road network in New York City. Even in my own neighborhood, Lyft often maps changes before I find them. You're quite on the ball.

That said, please note these two points from the Organised Editing Guidelines: 1) Public documentation of the proposal happens first, then communication with mapping communities, and only then, if objections have been resolved, mapping. 2) Communication via Slack doesn't meet the guidelines' criteria, since a third-party registration is required to participate. (For mapping in NYC, the best place for discussion would probably be the "Talk-us-newyork" mailing list, which covers all of NY State -- there's no public forum specifically for NYC at the moment.)

As I'm sure you're aware, landuse mapping standards vary greatly across the globe, and it's a good idea to follow established local norms when they exist. In NYC we've generally avoided grouping unrelated buildings into ad-hoc landuses, instead only mapping those with distinct names and boundaries. This hasn't ever been formally documented, but was arrived at over the years as mappers found that the extreme density of buildings, and the mixed and ever-changing uses of those buildings, made landuse polygons a poor fit -- difficult to map and maintain, subject to interpretation and disagreement.

Also, these recent Lyft landuse changesets have significant quality issues: Covering streets/sidewalks/other areas that don't match the landuse, slicing through buildings and parking areas, modifying building footprints to make room for landuse polygons, incorrect tagging (eg using =retail for a healthcare complex), etc.

Will it be possible for your team to cleanly revert these changes, in particular restoring the modified building footprints? If not, I can take this on myself.

Thanks, J

Hi Alexander -- This new effort to map landuse falls under OSM's "organised editing guidelines" ( https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ). I don't see where this initiative has been documented or discussed with local communities. Have I missed something?

Thanks, J

I've reverted this with changeset/128743390. EnumMapper, please discuss with the local community before changing one well-established accurate tag for another based on a guess. Thanks, J

Hi Mateusz, I appreciate that you've highlighted the possible ambiguity of the term "drinking fountain." I've voted no on this proposal, but I'll cease using this tag for the time being until some consensus can be reached. Thanks, Jason