Thank you!

Thank you for your additional comments. I am glad we found some common ground, that the incorrect data have been removed, and that this sort of error will not happen again (by you adding rail data which OSM agrees should not be in our map).

There are some kinds of rail data we do add to our map and some kinds of rail data (like the kind you entered) which we do not add to our map. Thank you for observing and respecting that distinction.

You would be incorrect that I checked your profile to determine your age; I did not. I simply guessed (by your behavior, the "but I don't want to do it by myself" sounded childish, so I guessed correctly).

Let's tone down what shouldn't be aggressive nor angry. I am not trying to create tensions, either. I most certainly have not threatened you, nor do I mean to do so.

If you find it "difficult to remove what you have added to the map," that is a problem. It actually does mean that you should not be adding things to the map in the first place (if you are unable or unwilling to remove them, especially if they are in error, and very especially if they are the same type of error data which you have entered before as an error, then you did it again).

Your error data have been removed by another OSM volunteer (IIVQ). Please: do not add more "rail data" to OSM.

When you repeatedly make the same mistake (after being told it is a mistake, and agreeing with us — the wider community — that it was a mistake, and then correcting your mistake), you deserve some judgment, even judgement which gets increasingly harsh.

OSM is a serious project, with serious data and serious people who want to maintain high quality in our data. Sometimes (as here) we must pass judgement when we see that others are "polluting" our map with bad data. Such judgement is not deserved for a "first mistake." (And you received only courtesy when this happened the first time). But when such a large mistake is repeated, the OSM community can, should and will judge such action as hostile to our mapping practices.

Especially when it is rebuffed with "but I don't want to delete it myself." That truly does appear like childish behavior (so it appears I guessed correctly that you are "under 18"). When either adults or children repeatedly add bad data to the map (in similar fashion to how they have done so recently, knowing it was wrong), such behavior will be rebuffed by the OSM community — with (sometimes harsh) judgment. If you don't like being treated like a child when acting childish, perhaps you should find another project to participate in. Otherwise, you will discover that thinking you do not deserve judgement will continue to surprise you, because you do deserve judgement.

It's fairly easy to follow our community guidelines, especially after you have been repeatedly told. Do so, without entering bad data, and you will receive no judgment. In fact, I frequently offer accolades and congratulations to (especially newer) mappers who map well — right here in changeset comments! On the flip-side, when there are errors, and especially repeated errors, you are going to hear about it. If you consider that "judgment," that's because it is, and again, it is deserved.

Well, then ask for help specifically here. Say "I cannot do it myself" not "I don't want to do it by myself." Unless you are a child, and if so, say so, and we will do it for you. And, don't do this again.

Otherwise, remove it yourself.

Thank you for your tight and touching reply. I have seen it happen where someone will enter layer=2 (for the third layer that might be there because there may be a layer=1 that isn't clearly known).

We've now got this one straightened out, and clearly!

I remember when AA was killed there, indeed such a tragedy was big news.

Yes, layer=0 isn't normally used, it is simply "known" (and implicitly used as level ground). I know Mapillary or StreetView can be used. The more inputs, the better, the more certain the knowledge (at least one person, strongly asserting as reality), the better.

This is firmly nailed in place as-is.

Actually, with a "triple-crossing) of two roads AND rail (with sidewalk-cycleway) there could very well be three layers.

Are you sure? Maybe the Monterey Road and Coast Subdivision are different levels (which doesn't hurt, if true), in which case "there are three."

But this is not an at-grade crossing. See? It could be two or three and we're not sure now.

Nice! I love your work, videos, updates!

It is well-established that OSM creates neither components of nor any whole of the Trans-European Transport Network (a "combined road-rail planning network"). Please remove these (again, as you have done before and acknowledged were wrong in that thread). Do not enter additional components of this / these.

Cool!

A kind offer re WSDOT contacts. This is in a sort of "cold storage holding pattern" for now, so let's see what Kerry uncovers later in the year.

Enjoy all that beauty out there!

Wow, Mr. S., you are Johnny-on-it! It was only a few hours ago I exchanged email with Kerry Irons (ACA, USBRS architect) about this and he now has an agenda item (autumn round?) to ask WSDOT about these three "parallel" segments on USBR 10 if they are possible "alt" or "belt routes" that might improve the route for the future.

What happens is "essentially rogue" OSM editors quite incorrectly add these parallel segments to route relations (more than in Washington, but Washington is sorta "hot" with these now), "making it seem" like this is / these are actual segments of the route. But in truth, neither WSDOT applied for them to be in USBR 10, nor has AASHTO Approved them.

So, before deleting them, I told Kerry a few days ago that I see these added (sometimes with much-more-likely-to-be-Approved parallel CYCLEWAY infrastructure) to USBRs, knowing they are incorrect, but perhaps OSM can "maximally wring out" potential beneficial route data to present to a DOT to present to AASHTO if the DOT agrees these might make "better route" segments. Kerry agreed that this is yet another way OSM can contribute to the bettering of the USBRS and agreed to present these (OSM volunteer errors to the route) to DOTs and say "mappers think these might make valid, better or parallel routing along this USBR in the future...what do you think, DOT?"

We'll see. As they are incorrect, I added the note tag, and as I do or don't hear back from Kerry (who will hear from WSDOT), they are very likely to be deleted from the route relation. Or, on the off-chance they like the mapper-added segments, the DOT will turn it into an application to AASHTO. But this will take some months.

As the USBRS is "only partially signed" (Kerry estimates ~25% of the System is signed), you MIGHT see USBR 10 signs on the Winthrop-Twisp segments that are REALLY part of USBR 10 (Highway 20), but you won't on the Main Street, Perry Street, Castle Avenue, Twisp-Winthrop East Road, East Twisp-Winthrop Road, Wagner Street segments, as they are incorrectly "conjured" or "imagined" into being into USBR 10 by an OSM mapper. If those latter segments were surveyed as to their "bicycle suitability" and say, you improved tags to where you might add cycleway=lane if it exists (I'm speculating), that would be fantastic and would add to the map, sure, but I'm not sure it would specifically help the situation beyond where Kerry intends to take it with WSDOT in the autumn. So, maybe, but not really. I certainly appreciate your good spirit to help here!

And, you'd be traveling between Winthrop and Twisp (9, 10 miles?) for what I might call "very little value," except I've never been to the Methow Valley, and it could be quite pretty in July.

Nice to hear from you.

Thanks for your updates! (I like your "Ready Kilowatt" avatar).

Picachu25 (its original author) writes me in OSM-missive:

"International Bikeway 80 is no longer top priority in my project, feel free
to delete it if you can. I have been trying to myself, but I am somewhat
new to OpenStreetMap, so I am unsure of a quick way to do that."

...OK, I have deleted it.

Bill, your redundantly-created relations have had their elements merged into already-existing (for this purpose) relation/12922709 (north) and relation/12882462 (south).

Please see our USBRS wiki, where I've updated the Pendleton-area inclusions.

Yes, I thought it might go there, but a "slow, breakup / devolution" is better than a "quick, full obliteration."

What I was trying to do was to see if the country-level components might (still? yet?) be fashioned / crafted into something that is a rail relation that is both sensible in a rail sense, a "this is how we do rail around here" (European countries) sense AND an OSM "well-formed rail relations" sense.

Maybe this (now "these") are not that: if these are to be deleted, well, at least the railway=rail elements remain.

I have broken apart the superroute so instead of >18k ways, it now contains six relations (one for each country).

Membership #s are:
Spain 6771 members
France 6103 members
Italy 3444 members
Slovenia 832 members
Serbia 539 members
Hungary 1244 members.

So, While Slovenia an Serbia are OK and Hungary might be "maxed out/borderline," all of Italy and especially Spain and France will need to be still further broken apart. Let's say to <2000 members each, as a next step.

I may have made some errors, but this is a nudge in the right direction (smaller relations that are more properly constructed to OSM standards). The job is not finished and should be continued by European mappers.

OSM doesn't enter overweight, difficult relations representing continent-wide planning corridors, which are actually multiple-corridor and contain spurs.

OSM does make route=railway relations, sometimes at a (rail-)company-wide level, sometimes at a country-wide level.

Accordingly, I'm about to break apart this almost 19000 member beast into at least five pieces, per country. The proposed and construction elements will be deleted. Still, some child relations will still contain thousands of elements and must be broken up further. I may not have the local / rail company knowledge required to further subdivide accurately, I attempt to simply make the data manageable given current tools and platforms.

Thanks oba510, been to Berkeley many times, you do great work in OSM. I recall Y2K and how in 1999 people (especially software and data-oriented people) were dotting Is and crossing Ts. UCSC having a comma seems to have slipped right passed me as the Regents published that letter via UCOP. Good catch!

Putting the comma back, you are correct. I found https://policy.ucop.edu/_files/da/2-26-99name.html which says there were changes in the late '50s and '60s and a clarification in 1999 that says all campuses use the comma.