Hello, Txemt!

I’m Rostom, an OSM mapping Lead at Lyft.
We invite you to reach out to Lyft Help (https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/all/requests/loginprompt ) regarding Lyft's operations as a company. If you have questions about OSM mapping, we would be happy to respond via dct-osm(at)lyft.com. Alternatively, you can message me directly at https://osmus.slack.com/team/U015KQ9LRA6 .

Best regards, Rostom

Hi impiaaa,
I’m Rostom, an OSM mapping Lead at Lyft,

The imagery was captured on September 2nd, 2024. For your reference, I have included a link that depicts the appearance of the road on that date - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LinRvcu9dpfbGvN-SwIRMGWCVBksK_7l/view?usp=sharing. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best Regards,
Rostom

Hi Mundilfari, I’m Rostom, the team lead on the OSM team at Lyft.

Thank you for the detailed clarification.
Regarding your question, there is no technical reason why we decided to follow this particular way of mapping. Information from the “Lanes” wiki page (osm.wiki/Lanes#:~:text=is%20an%20intersection.-,Street,-Here%2C%20a%20residential) was taken as the basis for our policy, and we have always tried to adhere to this workflow. We rely exactly on the “Lanes” wiki page because lanes count tag is firstly added to the road segment, and then, depending on the number of lanes, the rest of the necessary :lanes tags are added.
Our drivers get instructions in advance, no matter at which place the road was split. In my opinion both variants are possible and from our side won’t affect navigation so far.
We will look deeper into different states traffic rules specifications regarding lane markings and figure out if any specific policies per state would be needed.
In further edits we won’t modify lanes count and “:lanes” tags if they were mapped according to another approach.

Have a nice day,
Rostom

Hi MxxCon,
I’m Rostom, the OSM Team lead at Lyft.
Both images were taken on December 16th, 2021 and seem to be the most up-to-date evidence in this location.
We do not have any bike lanes related projects yet, but it is possible that in the near future there will be. Thank you for your suggestion!
Regards, Rostom

Hi, Matt McCutchen!

My name is Rostom and I am Lead of the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. We are so sorry that we have missed the "oneway:conditional" tag here and that our edit has ultimately led to the wrong direction on the road. Thank you so much for fixing it.
After additional investigation of the information in OSMwiki including the discussion that you provided to us, we have decided to reverse our edits in the changeset changeset/115463800.
The OSM team at Lyft will try to more attentively indicate information about temporary oneway roads and start using oneway:conditional tag for cases related to short term construction works with defined end date.
Thanks again for the detailed explanation and fixing the mistake.

I apologize for any inconvenience the edits may have caused.

Thank you for your contribution,
Rostom

Thanks for paying attention to that! We reviewed our destination tags editing approach. Instead of adding destinations from every physical sign we are going to add only the ones from the main exit sign further. We will also review our previous destination tags related changesets.
The excessive destinations at exit 25 were removed in this changeset - changeset/107446891.

Regards, Rostom

Apologies for pasting twice

Hi, DUGA

I’m Rostom, and I’m the lead of the OSM Quality Control team at Lyft. Thank you for your question!. We have just started to discuss our destination tagging approach with the mapping teams to find out what could improve driver experience based on their feedback. We hope to come up with new findings and results next week.
As for now, we add all the information from the exit dedicated destination signs, and I assume that the destinations above were taken from this one - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2883785208543142&focus=photo&lat=39.412975398019&lng=-76.617929970289&z=17.

Best Regards,
RostomHi, DUGA

I’m Rostom, and I’m the lead of the OSM Quality Control team at Lyft. Thank you for your question!. We have just started to discuss our destination tagging approach with the mapping teams to find out what could improve driver experience based on their feedback. We hope to come up with new findings and results next week.
As for now, we add all the information from the exit dedicated destination signs, and I assume that the destinations above were taken from this one - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2883785208543142&focus=photo&lat=39.412975398019&lng=-76.617929970289&z=17.

Best Regards,
Rostom

Hi, Baloo Uriza

My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this, interesting to know! I apologize for any inconvenience these edits may have caused.

Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, emiliovigil826

My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. According to OSMwiki (access=no) tag access=no is used mostly for existing objects (paths) that are blocked or illegal for general access. Service roads (way/689220446, way/204687827, way/689220453, way/204687822, way/847268263, way/847268618, way/35481780, way/130214399) were tagged with access=no, but there is no visible evidence for such edit. This tag on these roads is very harmful for routing, as it blocks the accessability of this parking lot - way/689220446. I noticed that you have added that tag to roads all over the USA, with the help of automated editor BusLanes 0.2.0. Also found that you added access=no to West 14th St in New York in this changeset - changeset/90889892. Could you please clarify the purpose of such edits? Do you have local or governmental resources that provide evidence for such edits? If so we would love to see it. If not, can you please revert the changesets with access=no tag been applied mistakenly?

Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, SomeoneElse
I sincerely apologize for this miscommunication, I have never meant to sound like that. By the time I noticed the comment and came to give a response, Mashin has already kindly reverted the edits, which I really appreciate. Of course, if by that moment the edits had not been reverted, I would have done it myself. In addition, I will check all the other edits in our project and make sure that none of them are harmful the same way as the initial edits in this thread. Otherwise I will definitely revert them as well. Thank you both, SomeoneElse and Mashin for the good advice you have shared — there’s always a place to learn something new.
Best regards, Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so it is fine to have the changes reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so it is fine to have the changes reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so it is fine to have the changes reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so it is fine to have the changes reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so it is fine to have the changes reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so it is fine to have the changes reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so it is fine to have the changes reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, Mashin
My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for paying attention to this. I apologize for any inconvenience these edits caused. I can assure you that we’re interested in saving all the useful data in OSM. Unfortunately, relations are out of our project scope for now, so the changeset will be reverted.
Thank you,
Rostom

Hi, emiliovigil826

My name is Rostom and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. According to OSMwiki (access=no) tag access=no is used mostly for existing objects (paths) that are illegal for general access. Golf View Drive (way/11172728) was tagged with access=no, but there is no visible evidence for such edit. This tag on Golf View Drive is very harmful for routing, as it blocks the accessability of some parking lots. We noticed that you have added that tag to multiple roads all over the USA, with the help of automated editor BusLanes 0.2.0. Do you have local or governmental resources that provide evidence for such edits? If so we would love to see it. If not, can you please revert the changesets with access=no tag been applied?

Thank you,
Rostom