Hi, a few months ago I noticed you added some buildings from microsoft building footprints - I'm not sure if you are in the area or not, but many of these houses around Superior were destroyed in a wildfire after the building footprints were made, so many are no longer accurate - either there is no home there anymore, or it was rebuilt but in a different configuration. Could you take a look using the NAIP imagery (most current right now) and confirm which buildings you added are actually present? Thanks - phidauex

Hi, I reconnected the sidewalk at Old Brompton Road, breaking that connection interrupts routing in the area. Generally speaking with sidewalks, while following the actual line is usually best, you do often need to make connections to other ways to allow logical routing, to show that a bicycle or pedestrian could transition from the sidewalk to the road at that location.

Hi, can I ask why you are deleting so many driveways and service roads? While a few may not be valid anymore, it looks like many do exist on the ground and should remain mapped.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144811496

Hi, the landuse tags should only apply where something has actually been built - for some of these areas where there are no houses, we wouldn't tag them as residential yet, even if they are zoned that way. Likewise with some of the commercial and retail landuse areas you just mapped as well - please either remove those tags, or shrink the mapped area down to the actual built portion. I believe there are a few other open comments on your map additions as well, please take a moment to go back and make needed corrections before continuing to edit, or people may start to revert your additions. Thanks, phidauex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144296127

Hi, this area should be more precisely tagged as a military residential area - the aeroway tags should be just for the actual airport facility itself.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144115741

Hi, welcome to OSM! I see you are making some changes around Adelanto. Can you tell me a bit more about what is happening in these large areas west of the airport? Currently the tags make it look like a giant factory is being built, and that they have flooded the entire area between El Mirage and Auburn with water, which I doubt is what you are trying to convey.

If you are representing proposed new development, then proposed:aeroway=aerodrome would indicate future airport expansion. osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

For the sewer and water area, if you are trying to show that the area is for the water department's use, then man_made=water_works would be more accurate, since natural=water indicates that it is full of water. man_made=water_works

And in both cases, you can remove the "name" field unless there is an actual sign calling it that. "Name" isn't use for descriptions, but only for proper names. For most features, the tags themselves describe what it is, rather than the text.

Let me know if you have any questions, and please make the necessary updates before moving on in the map.

Thanks - phidauex

Thanks for this! I keep having to un-expand East->E (and North/South/West) for letter-streets in CO (mostly SW CO). Are you doing the same for the other combos?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141187362

Hi, welcome to the map and thanks for your addition. I wanted to let you know that for roads and highways in OpenStreetMap, we don't abbreviate the road suffice (St., Ct., Ln., etc.), because it is easier for an algorithm to abbreviate than to "un-abbreviate". Would you mind popping back in to this update and expanding the road names? Thanks - phidauex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141124192

Interesting, I'll take a look and play around with it a bit, I'm glad to see that someone is taking an interest in the GNIS feature ID, it always seemed like a potentially useful tag, marred by several overlapping imports in the past. I've avoided deleting it when I come across it, so I'm glad to see them getting some use. Apologies that this earlier task confused things with the multiple IDs issue.

Yes, it was from this task I created a few years ago: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/3428

At the time, there was no consensus on what to do with the GNIS tags, and we had many cases where there were multiple GNIS IDs referring to the same object (I know that isn't supposed to be possible, but we found it was quite common - maybe from imports of different versions/eras of the database?).

The decision at the time was to simply leave the GNIS and NHD tags in place, unless it was clear to the mapper which ID was the "current/correct" ID, not always easy to determine.

If we have better tools for identifying correct GNIS ids I'd be happy to help with some of the cleanup.

Ok, that sounds reasonable. It is a bit of an odd area right now with the main road still under construction. I'll take another look once they finish the N. Powers extension to I-25.

And one more tip - last one I promise. You did a good job tracing the new amazon warehouse, but the way to finalize a building sketch is to use the "square" tool to make all the angles 90 or 45 degrees. In the iD editor, select the building, and hit the "Q" key (for sQuare) and it will tighten up all the angles and greatly improve the look of the map.

Hi, its me again! Another recommendation here. In OSM, the "name" tag is only for the proper name of the location or object, not the description (see: osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions). So the proper tagging for a retention basin would be "natural=water", "water=basin" and "basin=retention". The OSM Wiki has a lot of good information on tagging conventions, they can be somewhat complex. basin=*

Can you please review and update your recent edits?

Thanks - phidauex

Hi, thanks for joining OSM and improving the map! I noticed you changed some of these service roads to "trunk", which isn't correct for roads like this. Trunk, in OSM terminology, is for roads that connect major population centers or destinations, while service roads are internal roads for businesses. Can you change these roads around the Amazon building back to "service"? Thanks - phidauex

Hi, I noticed you moved this section up to trunk and added expressway tagging. From my understanding of our current guidance, the expressway tagging makes sense, but the trunk classification seems too high since this short stretch doesn't connect population centers. Thoughts?

Reverted in changeset id 129654976.

Hi Joe, can you explain what you were hoping to accomplish with this edit? You have designated every path on campus as bridge, and applied an incorrect name. This damages routing and map data accuracy. This edit will need to be reverted, but if you can let explain the intent I may be able to direct you to the right resources to learn about correct OSM map data tagging and editing. Thanks - Sam
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129305114

Most of the conversation is on the OSM US Slack, #highway-classification channel, or embedded in a hundred changeset comments like this one. The wiki was our attempt to consolidate some of that feedback into a single location, even though all the source commentary isn't captured. The "Kansas" error would be mine, probably typing faster than I was thinking.

Just a plug for both of you and anyone else checking the changeset, the Wiki has good documentation for Colorado now, based on the larger US discussions, and a lot of activity last year on talk-us and the US Slack. There are still open issues, of course, and there is good discussion on the Talk page which shows which trunks are more controversial than others, but that would be a good place to comment or suggest revisions. osm.wiki/Colorado/Highway_Classification

Right now the light consensus is that US-34 probably does deserve to be trunk, not because of Haigler, but because it is the main route to southern Nebraska. Depending on what nebraska mappers wanted to do, I'd think this would probably extend at least to McCook / Hwy 83. If NE mappers felt like it wasn't trunk importance, then that might make CO change as well - all in or all out, so to speak.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126673901

Hi, I see you dropped a part of Shields and Harmony to secondary, can you explain a bit more about why? For Shields, I might agree, but we are left with an odd stub of "primary" to the north, which doesn't seem right. For Harmony, I do think of it as one of the larger primary roads in Fort Collins.