Hi snake21, what's the source for this only_straight_on relation? relation/16640114

Well that's a fine question. I guess my instinct was to put the city department first, a la nycdoitt:bin. I've also used nycdoe:ref for schools. But I'm not married to these forms & happy to standardize on whatever folks think is best.

Is this really a no-smoking law office? ;)

node/9132534664/history/1

From a road in Ulster County, no less! I'm tempted to say it's a Go Map bug but more likely it was human error, somehow? Thanks for the heads up.

Absolutely, if possible. I only map this way as a last resort.

Here's one I remember doing a while back: way/249606377

It's signed 798-812, right under the Colonel's nose. It's 798-812 on the website ( even right in the url: https://locations.kfc.com/ny/brooklyn/798-812-4th-avenue ). There's no reason to think the restrooms are 798 4th Ave and the drive-thru window is 812 4th Ave. By all available evidence, the real-world address of this place is 798-812. So that's what I tagged, and added the address interpolation way to boot. Frankly it's hideous, but I still think it's less bad than any currently-available alternatives.

"-" really is a damned boondoggle. I really wish Queens hadn't adopted it as separator punctuation in their addresses, and I really wish other New Yorkers wouldn't use it to sign ranges. But they did, and they do.

I've struggled a lot with how to deal with this. When a poi really does appear to be using the whole range as their housenumber (2752-2758 in this example) my instinct is to angrily tag what I see.

The other obvious tactic is just to tag it with the lowest housenumber in the range. This looks better from a data hygiene point of view, and avoids any Queens-style confusion. But it conveys less information, and it doesn't follow OSM's "truth-on-the-ground" best practice.

Nonetheless, putting the whole range in addr:housenumber is annoying enough that I'd much rather just use a single number, if I can justify it somehow. The good news is, I think I can justify it here -- seems this place has a website https://www.atlanticcarsale.com and the housenumber listed there is simply 2752. So, making believe that the website is equivalent to on-the-ground signage, I've changed this car dealer to `housenumber=2752`.

I could talk about this problem all day, and probably should at some point.

If you haven't read it yet, here's NYC's summary of the address formats in use & how the city's own geocoding software handles them: https://nycplanning.github.io/Geosupport-UPG/chapters/chapterV/section02/#house-number-format-standards

And here's a proposal for a tag that might be of use to us, if it were ever adopted by geocoders: osm.wiki/Proposal:Addr:interval

Aha, thanks. I've removed all the Giovanni tagging from node/2550089888 and left it as a disused restaurant.

The website says "diagonally across the street" so I'm guessing it means at way/249624759 which has been vacant as long as I can remember. I left a note there so we can keep an eye on it.

Haven't heard back, so I've removed this parking node and left a note requesting survey.

Re node/10835701238, this parking area had been mapped as way/854537978 but as far as I know it's been closed for years. Do you have information that's it's been reopened?

Well I've removed this name from the parking lot since I can't find any reason for it;, let me know if that's a problem.

Hi there, I'm wondering about the name "Grand Central Parkway" for the parking lot at way/25346338 -- is this perhaps a mistake?

Just noticed this little under-prioritized segment of Union Square East, secondary when the rest is primary: way/420598402

I was inclined to just delete it and extend way/923090985 south to meet way/923091012. My impression here is that this would be fine as far as the bicycle tagging goes -- the stretch currently covered by way/420598402 has two-way bike lane paint and the southern end can be approached (dismounted) via the crosswalk. Just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Thanks, J

Yeah thanks, they changed names & kept the old phone number but I should've yoinked the website tag!

August 2022 was almost a year ago -- an eternity for NYC ;) Here's a pic from a couple of days ago: https://postimg.cc/N9kQYCwv

I surveyed this spot last month and removed these crossings, see note/3749278 ... but I probably should've left the crossing ways in place, marked them disused, and added a fixme for future survey -- because if they're still visible on aerial imagery there's always a chance that someone will map them without actually surveying or checking with locals first. So that's what I've done this time (changeset/138563718).

In locations where there are active mappers and you're unable to survey personally, consider contacting the local community or leaving a note or fixme, and please check for notes & fixmes that others have left.

Also please be aware that, although useful as a reference, the Cyclomedia imagery hosted at geocoder.nyc is not licensed as a data source for OSM. Only imagery that's been explicitly released with an OBdL-compatible license can be used for mapping. This is why it's important to be explicit about your sources for each changeset.

Thanks, Jmapb

Hello! I'm wondering what the source is for the name and boundaries of the residential land use "Old Church Bell" (way/108220707) which you added 12 years ago.

Thank you, J

Has this crossing been restored? way/1075789633

Howdy Iván!

Please don't use the "fixme" tag to describe why you've made an edit to the map. It's great to know why, but that information goes in the changeset comment.

A "fixme" tag should be used when there's a known issue with a particular feature's data that needs to be addressed by OSM mappers in the future. See fixme=* for more info.

Thanks, J

Gotcha -- yeah, better to put it just on the path, not directly touching Lawrenceville. As it is now, it looks like traffic driving along Lawrenceville has to pass through that gate as well.

Ok I *think* I managed to unsplit those roads without undoing any of the other work. The bus routes still have problems, but they did before too, so no big change there.

...It's from a different changeset ( changeset/136673392 ) but I was also wondering about this gate sitting in the middle of Lawrenceville Street: node/10934511170

Yeah I was gonna suggest that.... let me take a stab ;)