Hi, these service roads were deleted months ago due to construction. I'll fix it here because I'm adding the apartment building that was here before, but when you see a "landuse=construction" area, double check newer imagery or otherwise think twice before adding roads back that may have been intentionally removed. Thanks - phidauex.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81390096

FYI, if you'd like to join the OSM US Slack, there are channels for tagging questions, and a Colorado channel for regional mapping questions and discussion. Invite link can be retrieved here: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi, thanks for checking - the point was on this bridge, connecting it to the river. It was super-minor and I fixed it as I was working on some other things. Don't sweat it, you are doing a lot of good improvements and thought you'd appreciate the note. TIP: When on the main map view, right click near something and select "query features", it will show you what ways enclose the spot you clicked, and what is nearby. Very helpful for interrogating the map for details while working. way/793244971 Happy mapping!

Thanks, that looks good for now. I do think there is some work to be done in classifying Open Space, as we do it in Colorado - it defies a lot of normal tagging because it is protected, but also not really "for" anything - it is just space that is intentionally kept open, but with somewhat vague uses. In Boulder, it can be a nature reserve, but it can also be leased out to farmers.

In any event, this way you are at least tagged consistently with the others in the state, and when some better plan comes together for tagging open space, it will be easy to find and update.

The numerical designations are indeed confusing... As for the relation type, "multipolygon" was deprecated a while back for boundaries, it is best to use type=boundary. It is OK that iD doesn't call this an "area", the rest of the system knows what a boundary is.

As for the other tags, I believe "protected_area=nature" to just be a mistake, that isn't a documented tag with any consistent use, I think "protect_class=5" or maybe 6 is most appropriate, alongside recreation_ground and/or nature reserve, depending on the use of the land.

Check out South Table Mountain Park's relation, which I updated a while back while making open space areas in Boulder/Denver/Jeffco more consistently tagged: relation/7088454

Hi, I agree that a relation is the right way to do this, but the tagging may need to be updated a bit. I believe current practice is that the relation should be "type=boundary" rather than multipolygon, and instead of protected_area=nature, the tag "protect_class=5" would be more appropriate. The leisure=nature_reserve and landuse=recreation_ground are possibly redundant, but I've been including them on a lot of similar open spaces in CO to make sure they get scooped up by the data consumers, though in the future I think the protect_class tag is more precise.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83787470

Good additions to the fort collins map, thanks! One small suggestion is to be careful about unintended connections between ways - one of your sidewalks was connected to the Poudre in a way you probably didn't intend. Holding "alt" or "option" while drawing will disable snapping in iD. Happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83747608

Thanks for re-opening the connector to Stazio, don't forget to remove the "construction = cycleway" tag to finish the job!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83407993

Thanks - I saw a lot of changes coming through and just wanted to make sure you had noticed this issue before you got too deep into it.

Hi, your recent imports are leaving tons of orphan nodes - are you seeing these and cleaning them up before proceeding?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83202691

CyclOSM gives a good idea of how data consumers see the relationship between paths with or without "designated", which I find helpful for identifying mismatches between the intended use a path and the tagging: https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=17/41.71700/-73.96699/cyclosm

Hi, I do a lot of cycleway cleanups, and would potentially recommend going further in order to retain compatibility with major cycle renderers and data consumers:

True multi-use path:
highway = path
bicycle = designated
foot = designated

Cycleway, but foot traffic is allowed (probably wider, may have center stripe, may have "bike" in the trail name):
highway = cycleway
foot = yes

Footway, but bicycles are allowed:
highway = footway
bicycle = yes

What doesn't tend to make a lot of sense is something like highway = footway and bicycle = designated. If it is designated for bicycles, then it is a path or cycleway.

More tips here: https://github.com/BikeOttawa/OSM-Bike-Ottawa-Tagging-Guide

Hope this helps - phidauex

Thanks, if you are filling in details after the fact then it makes sense, just making sure it wasn't a normal process. Thanks for your attention to detail and the good map work. An Amazon Logistics mapper added my own driveway the other day - I never bothered to add it myself!

Thanks, I wasn’t sure if you were local since most of your change sets were elsewhere in the world. If you can confirm the road types and tag them correctly, that is ideal. Thanks!

If someone is going to restore these, please at least evaluate their alignments and tagging from the imagery available - they are definitely not residential roads.

Hi Daungg, I'm not the original editor, but A41 is a TIGER road classification, not the name. The US has a lot of these old imported roads, and many aren't at all accurate so they get regularly deleted or changed, and we tend to trust local mapper's judgement in this regard.

In this case, that way is definitely not a residential road - track at best - and it may not even be passable anymore. Be cautious when restoring TIGER imported roads - they may have been removed for a good reason.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/77746831

Hi, can you please add the source information to the changeset notes, rather than adding a comment? Many of us follow the comment feeds to see what is being discussed, and having these default comments show up is spamming the system. I assume it is an automated feature since I'm seeing a lot of it right now - would you please mention to your team lead that it would be better to put the source into the changeset rather than a comment? Thanks - Sam

Thanks for updating - routers may someday allow for routing across an area, but there are subtle challenges that have kept it from being supported so far. Parking lots and pedestrian plazas and outdoor malls are the most common case where routing across an area could be useful.

FYI, I took a closer look at this one as well, and Bowers does have a dedicated cycle lane - you can see in the tags that it has already been added correctly - the only issue here is the relation, which is used to join large city-wide or state-wide cycle networks, not mark individual streets.

Hi Michaela, please remove the cycle route relations you've created - it isn't the right way to add cycle infrastructure. Refer to my other comment and see the tagging guide for how to add bike lanes to roads (after you've verified that they exist).