Ok, I guess the big question is whether Ulster Ave should be split into a dual carriageway... Generally we only do this is there's a physical divider of some kind, not just road paint. (See osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway .)

If it *is* valid to map as dual carriageway (I was on Ulster Ave on Wednesday & I'm appalled that I can't remember!) then that has a lot of impact on what turn restrictions are necessary where. Eg, this only_right_turn that I added at the exit from Kings Mall:
relation/14697083 ... it was useful when Ulster Ave was two-way, but exiting onto a one-way road it's redundant.

relation/14697154 is even worse... it made sense when I added it, but now it applies to traffic traveling south in the northbound lanes, so it's completely meaningless.

There are also implications to the bus route relations... eg see how this bus route now jumps between the northbound and southbound lanes: relation/12678504#map=18/41.96173/-73.99022

Hi bedouin_88, welcome back to OSM!

Fellow Kingston mapper here... l saw some of the restrictions you added on Ulster Ave and I'm a little confused. Can you explain what you're working on here?

Thanks, jmapb

True, true... but there are plenty of street and place names whose current spellings diverge from their etymologies.

The only other source for the possessive form is TIGER (notoriously bad in this regard.) Meanwhile, the street signs say MARKS, the imported addresses say Marks, the PAD file says MARKS, GOAT says MARKS, ZOLA says MARKS, DOB says MARKS, and the bus and bike maps say MARKS. I'm pretty sure that's the correct form.

I would have put Saint Mark's Place in as alt_name, but these ways are already tagged alt_name=East 8th Street... maybe Saint Mark's Place would actually be a more useful value for alt_name though.

Hi there... it's obvious that Moe's Pastrami & Burger (node/10247751973) is not Moe's Southwest Grill, so I fear that you may be "fixing issues" based on the map editor warnings rather than your own knowledge.

Please only add things to the map that you personally know to be true, and only remove or change things that you personally know to be inaccurate.

Thanks, jmapb

(I've already fixed Moe's in changeset/136350431.)

My usual recommendation to take iD's advice with salt ;) Please consider confirming these changes by survey... or leaving a note requesting a survey... or contacting the mapper who did the current tagging... (and enjoy this beautiful weekend!)

way/617474312 is still Duane Reade, operated by Walgreens. The pharmacy inside is Walgreens. This is the reason for the elaborate mapping with the separate node for the pharmacy inside the shop polygon -- so they can have different names.

This is the second time you've made this change. I don't know if this is your decision or iD's, but please let this poor Duane Reade be... until it eventually gets renamed to Walgreens like most of the others, at which time we can map it more cleanly as a single node.

(reverted in 136032390)

I understand that this split-carriageway island mapping technique has value for crosswalk micromapping -- otherwise I would have just reverted these changes and added island nodes, instead of commenting ;)

Itserpol never replied here but did eventually add the required restriction relations in changeset/130040223. In the mean time, vehicle routing was borked at this busy intersection for a month. 🤷

I'd like to think we can put our heads together and devise an island mapping technique that will allow full crosswalk details without subjecting the roads to this butchery... Looks like I've got some catching up to do on Slack so maybe y'all have already cracked it!

Regardless, it's important that crosswalk mappers understand that splitting a single-carriageway road into dual carriageways is kind of a big deal and can cause serious problems if not done carefully.

Hello.. I'm curious about the grass landuse way/1119519649

What's the source on this? It looks to me like it encompasses a service road, a small bit of woods, and people's private back yards. And it intersects with a few buildings as well.

I too was skeptical last year when I saw this changeset, from a brand new account... but I surveyed and there is indeed a skate apparatus there. It was drawn as a crude polygon, which I changed to a node pending updated aerial imagery.

I'm not a skater myself so I trusted the tags of the original mapper, Jane V Moses, who added "description=mini pumptrack" (which is actually still tagged on the flagpole) so I guess that's what it is. You can see it in the article about labyrinths that akadouri posted to #local-nyc -- https://gothamist.com/news/new-york-city-is-filled-with-labyrinths-if-you-know-where-to-look

Anyway I'm putting this back, and I'll add the flagpole as its own node.

Skateboard thingie next to the restroom building is no longer here? I could swear I saw it a few days ago.

Hi -- can you share any info about this local user's request? Thanks, jmapb

Good question! Looks like I may have changed my mind halfway through, from shop=car to amenity=car_rental.

This is a place that mainly deals in long-term car leases. The customer doesn't ever own the car, but may keep it for years. It's functionally like shop=car, but legally more like a rental.

Haven't found any discussion of this topic in the mailing list, forums, or wiki. But taginfo shows a few uses of service:vehicle:leasing=yes, so I've tagged that along with shop=car.

(also that's what the sign at node/2442957559 implies iirc)

Howdy... From the maps, and the boundaries that you imported, I thought way/989768152 was on state land and way/20212985 was the only portion of this trail on private land.

Hi, it's been two weeks & I haven't heard back, so I've deleted node/9927736652

Hello snake21 ... you created two "only_straight_on" restrictions in this changeset, where Borinquen Place transitions from single to dual carriageway:

You added relation/14482327 which is a good idea because it prevents drivers from crossing the center line for u-turns.

You also added relation/14482328 going westbound from way/1087928487 to way/421123044 . This restriction is unnecessary because the westbound traffic has no other routable option.

I've deleted relation/14482328 in changeset/13323525. No further fixes are needed, just FYI.

Slightly more specific text from https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/trafrule.pdf --

(i) Marked crosswalk. The term “marked crosswalk” means that part of a roadway defined
by two parallel lines or highlighted by a pattern of lines (perpendicular, parallel or diagonal
used either separately or in combination) that is intended to guide pedestrians into proper
crossing paths.
(ii) Unmarked crosswalk. The term “unmarked crosswalk” means that part of a roadway,
other than a marked crosswalk, that is included within the extensions of the sidewalk lines
between opposite sides of the roadway at an intersection, provided that (A) the roadway
crosses through the intersection rather than ending at the intersection, and/or (B) all traffic
on the opposing roadway is controlled by a traffic control device.

The way I'm reading this, an "unmarked crossing" is valid (curb ramps or no) if all of the following conditions are met:
a) There are no crosswalk markings.
b) It's at a "+" intersection, not at "T" intersection.
c) The sidewalk continues on the other side of the intersection.
d) The intersection features a stop light or stop sign controlling traffic on the road being crossed.

Offhand I'd say this is a much saner definition than the one in https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/hwyrules.pdf ... and on closer reading the context there is newsrack regulations, not pedestrian traffic.

`"Crosswalk" shall mean that part of a roadway, whether marked or unmarked, which is included within the extension of the sidewalk lines between opposite sides of the roadway at an intersection`

Per https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/hwyrules.pdf , that's what NYC DOT thinks. Crosswalks don't require markings or curb-cut ramps. They don't even *follow* the markings or ramp cutouts -- they follow the line of the sidewalk.

Howdy... I surveyed node/9927736652 and there's nothing of the sort there. (An unlikely place for it, to boot.)

I'm not sure what your data source is for these, but maybe check if this place still exists. If so, maybe the correct location should be in this building in Manhattan, which has other medical practitioners in it:
way/249847709

See amenity=dancing_school ... the wiki, unfortunately, is not consistent at the moment.

A place where people dance socially, as a leisure activity, can be accurately tagged leisure=dance. And if that place also offers lessons, then tagging leisure=dance + dance:teaching=yes is likely better than tagging amenity=dancing_school. These places do exist; here's one you fixed correctly: node/5744528976

A place where people do *not* gather to dance socially cannot be tagged leisure=dance. That would be troll tagging. ( osm.wiki/Trolltag )

iD's suggested "upgrades" are not correct in all cases. They should only be used on an individual basis, after investigating the feature in question.