To clarify--I think there is a process issue. Regardless of that process, you cannot use Google Streetview to place the cameras. Nor, could you import the copyrighted CT roads data and then go and manually improve the location with a in person or correctly licensed imagery (Bing Streetside or Mapilliary)

IANAL, but I do think it is fine if you use the CT map as a guide (like a list of places to go survey) to either personally survey, or use a legal source of imagery to survey their location.

Thanks!

Thanks for adding the construction information here. I've undone the closed bridge section part of 94 since i-94 is open eastbound, even if it is on the other span.

My pleasure, I'm slowly trying to add all the sidewalks to St. Paul.

I reverted this change as it was spurious, done by a non-existent editor and poorly commented: changeset/167278195

I was about to change the lake superior relation, but noticed that you had already started working on it.
Could you please use more meaningful changeset comments? It would really help, especially when such a big object is changed.

Hi, Thanks for adding a bunch of wooded areas to the map. All these details help. One minor recommendation is that the "name" tag is used for formal names to specific areas/places and not descriptions like "Forested Area". If there is not a generally used name for a wooded area, no name tag is necessary, the "natural=wood" tag is sufficient.

Thanks for fixing my notes!

Nice!

I changed the building to razed:building

Hi, Thanks for adding all these building foot prints. I just wanted to note that one of these buildings (way/1314504642/) was torn down a few years ago. The ESRI (clarity) imagery is known to be a bit dated, so be careful when using it. Hennepin County has good imagery from 2020-2024 that is high resolution and mostly leaves off, so great for mapping. You can see it in ID and add it yourself in JOSM using the link here: https://gis-hennepin.hub.arcgis.com/pages/imageryelevation

I think what I would do, if there are no numbered/named routes would be to add lcn=yes and maybe cycle_network=US:MI:Troy on each of the ways that are currently in the network. I would not use a route relation for ways that are not a route.

I would only create the relations if they are named/numbered linear routes. If this is just "Troy bike network" then I would not use relations at all; I would simply tag the infrastructure.

There would be no reason to create a super relation. Each continuous linear route should have its own relation and leave it as that. Obviously, you should have the actual infrastructure tagged on the individual ways (like cycleway=lane or cycleway=shared_lane)

The renderings you cite are not official in any way, they are just ones that are present on main OSM site.

Beat me to it! Thank you.

Hi, thanks for your efforts in editing the map. In this changeset, you remove the bridge tags from two ways that appear to be bridges and added the tags to a way that goes under these bridges. Is this what you intended?

Also, please use changeset comments that detail what you are changing and other details so that other editors can better understand the edits.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152521256

Hi, thank you for adding features to the map and asking for review. It appears that you have added a short trunk highway in the middle of what appears to be a field. I this what you intended?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152521222

Looks good!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152103154

Hi I removed the name "Avenue of the Saints" from all the I-35 ways as there is already a road relation that has that name on it.

Hi I see that you added "Blue Star Memorial Highway" to the name tag of I-35. This is not the actual name of this highway and should not be used in the name tag. You will notice that there was already a `official_name` tag with the same appellation. This is the generally approved way to use these memorial names.