Hi, yes, I did. I was trying to only delete rails where there is clearly no longer any trace of them, but it looks like I may have deleted some that should have just been switched to railway=abandoned. I will revert this changeset. Thanks

Yes! It is no longer a pharmacy. I will update it now

Hi, jaywking,

This is a good kind of project, but there are a couple problems.

1.
Many of these open spaces/nature reserves already exist on the map. If you're importing a polygon that already exists, you have to actually replace the existing one. In JOSM, that is done with "More Tools -> Replace Geometry (Ctrl+Shift+G). Right now, there are multiple overlapping open spaces at the one you mentioned in your message to me.

2.
Most of the tags on the ways you imported are incompatible with OSM data. You need to delete all the tags from the polygon (e.g., "AREA_ASSES 2.86), and add relevant OSM tags. For example:

operator=Town of Ridgefield
leisure=nature_reserve (You already got this)
name=Lakeview Road Open Space

I like to add names such as "Lakeview Road Open Space" if no other name is established for a municipally-owned open space.

Best,
Jack

Thanks for catching that, I will fix that

Hi, why are you widely implementing these changes to highways I edit:
1) drastically reducing nodes at curves I put effort into mapping smoothly, creating the illusions of >40-degree angles to represent curves?
2) deleting traffic signals from the stop line and putting them at crossings?

Hi, please fix the northernmost corner of the Charter Oak Bridge that you moved erroneously. Thanks

Hi, Zack, Thanks for all the great work you do in CT. But I'd request that you refrain from adding "natural=wood" onto ways with "leisure=nature_reserve" or parks etc., and instead draw the woods as a separate way. I recently removed it from Mooween State Park, and you added it back. As you can see, this makes Red Cedar Lake appear as if it is covered in trees, and it gives the appearance of the treeline perfectly following the park boundary. This is a way of "filling the map with color" that I think we should move away from because it's not accurate. I've been trying to fix this by mapping woods in more detail lately. Thanks, Jack

I added a paragraph to this section:

osm.wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification#Motorway

Hi,

Re: classification gaps, I think this makes sense. I will add a note about this type of mapping on the wiki page, and I'll start working on it. Feel free to do the same. I'll add text on the wiki page saying very short gaps (use reasonable judgement) on side streets between motorway links and roads of higher classification can be upgraded. Since this general note will exist on the page, we don't need to document every instance of it. We just want 'exceptions' to the rules to be listed so that we can keep track of them. I'll work on this now.

Re: US 7 in Danbury, I agree with what you're saying; undivided highways should not be motorways. It looks correct to me right now.

Re: Columbus Ave, I considered making that same upgrade, but decided to wait and see whether US 1 may be re-routed through the very recently constructed segment of Columbus Ave. If you want to make this edit, that's fine, but then please add it to the "Exceptions to this classification scheme" table on the Wiki page by creating a new row in the table.

Here's the link to the classification page: osm.wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification

Hi, Joseph! Thanks for the replies and direct message. In 2022, I created a classification system based on community input and other models for CT (link at bottom of comment). Mashin has been a great partner in alerting users that we do in fact have a system in place, and edits should be in keeping with the system (e.g., exceptions to the system are documented on the wiki). Mashin is definitely not "anti-community." CT is a small state, so I think it's good that we scrutinize both large and small edits to the highway system. My goal was to set good foundational criteria, and then to minimize hand-picked deviations from those rules. This creates a classification system that is consistent, which is a core value for machine-actionable data such as OSM (my day-job is in metadata, so classification is my bread and butter). Any instance of a hand-picked deviation from the classification system is 1) listed in detail on the classification page and 2) a justification is given, so other mappers can understand why the change was made. It's fine to make (reasonable) edits that deviate from the classification system, but they should be documented on the classification page in the section titled "Exceptions to this classification scheme" (link at bottom of comment). So far, the exceptions generally resolve these problems: 1) "classification spurs", e.g. when a primary road would simply end without connection to another road of a greater classification. These aren't good for an interconnected system of highways, which is a priority on OSM. And 2), a general lack of primary roads through rural areas (there are only a few of these).

I've reviewed the edits you've sought to contribute, and I'm seeing the following types:

1.) Upgrading a **short** segment of a 'side road' connecting a motorway link and another important road (e.g., upgrading a segment of Meadow Road in Windsor from residential to primary). Is this type of change helpful? We haven't making this type of exception in the past. I think routing software will figure it out, and this type of edit isn't necessary. Please elaborate if you disagree.

2.) You changed a road bridging a trunk dual carriageway from service to trunk_link. This was correct, and is covered by OSM general guidelines. I don't view this a something that should be covered by state-level classification projects.

Thanks to both of you for your edits. Jnighan

Can you name one more problem with my changeset? Even one more? Or did you see one error and decide to delete all my work. You had no basis to assume it was an import. Are you even a local mapper to this area? You edit all over the place. How did you come to find the one (1) building that I mistakenly added, misidentify a "mass" import, and undo all of it after only 3 minutes of commenting? I am not trying to "start an argument", I am giving you a chance to explain yourself--a critical part of good behavior on OpenStreetMap, and something you failed to do with me. I will start the process of undoing your revert tomorrow and reporting this if you don't have a better explanation.

And calling your edits "high quality" and "ground truth", and mine "low quality" doesn't count as a reason. Cheers.

By the way, reverting changesets 3 minutes after commenting on them is **probably** worse than me adding one building by mistake and you calling that an "import". Learn how to identify a bad import before reverting manual changesets people put effort into because you find one error and allow 3 minutes for it to be corrected. You need to give me more reasons why I shouldn't undo your revert and report this, or I will. Thanks.

What are you talking about? I did not import anything whatsoever.

I only deleted church POIs after extensive internet searches and found no evidence of their existence. If a church building still exists, I moved POI data from the node to the building and added "was:..." tags to preserve the historical data.

I only delete buildings after comparing old and new satellite imagery and verified they no longer exist. Same goes for adding new buildings.

Please undo your revert on your own or I will do it soon. Thanks.

Hi, what in the world does this mean? Thanks for giving me 3 minutes to respond before reverting my large changeset. I will seek intervention by the OSMF Data Working group if I don't hear from you soon.

Revert a changeset that added "access=no" and "access=no-" (invalid value) to multiple major highways, and inappropriate changed roads to highway=pedestrian.

changeset/157895940

Hi, do not add "access=no" or "access=no-" (which is an invalid value anyways) to roads that are accessible to vehicle traffic. "Access=no" means NO form of travel can use a road. By adding it to Saint John's Square (CT-17) and Route 9 SB, your edit effectively shut down these roads to people using GPS that uses OSM data.

Also, please don't change paths like the ones in Indian Hill Cemetery to highway=pedestrian. Read the below for appropriate use of this tag, i.e. "found in shopping areas, town centres, places with tourism attractions and recreation/civic areas, where wide expanses of hard surface are provided for pedestrians to walk"

highway=pedestrian

Hi, you've changed a number of roads that I changed from service to residential back to service. This was not correct; I changed them to residential based on City of Waterbury GIS that shows them as municipally owned on city ROWs, they are publicly accessible, and they have names. These are the criteria for highway=residential. It doesn't matter if they 'feel like driveways.' They are allowable for public use, even if the city or town hasn't built them up to standard highway width or construction.

Please refer to:

osm.wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification