OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
109959543 almost 4 years ago

Thanks, Joseph! Happy mapping!

109959543 almost 4 years ago

Hi Joseph, please do not upgrade these sections to motorway. As described at osm.wiki/Vermont these sections are not up to full interstate standards. While they have grade separation they are mostly single-lane each direction aside from an exceedingly short approach to the large interchange, are otherwise not separated by direction, and low speed limit (50-55mph). Beyond this large interchange they are single-carriageway.

Please join us to discuss further in the #local-vermont channel of the OSM-US Slack (I see you've already joined the Slack). About a dozen mappers from the region have been discussing the top-level (motorway & trunk) road tagging in the region for months and have come to the consensus that these roads should be tagged as highway=trunk for their connectivity importance and expressway=yes for their enhanced construction level, but not highway=motorway as their construction level isn't high enough for a significant-enough distance to warrant this upgrade.

102252368 almost 4 years ago

Hi Eric, thanks for all of the great land-cover mapping you've been doing! I hope you'll continue if you remain inspired as Vermont has lots of land without good land-cover coverage. :-) I spent a day in Orange County a couple weeks ago and was inspired to add a lot of land cover (mostly natural=wood) in Vershire and Chelsea that connects down to your beautiful work.

One tip: as you are mapping land-cover, it can be a good practice not to connect land-cover ways to town boundaries, roads, and other non-land-cover types of objects as doing so can make it harder to change those other objects in the future or introduce unexpected changes to them when further refining land-cover. In particular, tweaks to land-cover may accidentally drag town boundaries a bit in a way that can be hard to correct without downloading the boundary data from the state again and comparing its alignment.

Roads are less of a correction issue than boundaries, but years ago I made the mistake of splitting road-ways at each land-cover change so that I could use small parts of the road as the outer-ways of land-cover multipolygons. Unfortunately this made it very difficult to update road properties as each road was now dozens of little ways -- I'm still finding and fixing these a decade later. ;-)

I see you are on the OSM-US Slack -- feel free to reach out if you'd like to chat more on Vermont land-cover mapping or other topics. :-)

Cheers!
Adam

109429933 almost 4 years ago

Please don't remove valid surface=* tags from road ways. Without an explicit tag it is impossible to know if a road is paved, unpaved, or just hasn't been examined yet. Especially in northern New England and other rural parts of the US (let alone the rest of the world) there are many significant roads that are unpaved, but for which surface data still needs to be added. Removing surface=* tags complicates that effort of getting complete data coverage.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109429933

95320657 about 4 years ago

Thanks, DUGA.

101920563 over 4 years ago

My changeset comment got automatically truncated when saving. The full comment:

Downgrading US7 near Bennington to Trunk. As discussed in previous changeset comments and replies, this highway is a "Super 7" structure that is not up to full motorway standards. While it does have many grade-separate intersections, traffic is either not directionally separated or only a single lane in either direction for all but a tiny portion of these routes. Speeds are lower than those of I-89 and I-91 as well. Depending on the consensus of highway=trunk use in the US, downgrading this to highway=primary may be warranted, but it is certainly not highway=motorway. I'm leaving it as highway=trunk now to indicate that it is "something more than primary" while it is not fully a motorway.

96911789 over 4 years ago

Welcome to editing OpenStreetMap, SGC-I. The edit looks good. I was able to pull up the same USGS topo layer you were using and verified the name there. In my area we have a lot of families named "Hurlburt" as well, so I would trust this spelling. Go ahead and add a bit more detail to your change-set comments if you are able as to *why* you made the change rather than just *what* the change is. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about OSM or editing in Vermont. More resources for Vermont can be found at osm.wiki/Vermont#Resources . Cheers, Adam
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96911789

89476518 almost 5 years ago

Hi Ronnie, I'm interested in what data source you used to pick the name and type for this feature?

The Pulp Mill Covered Bridge is already mapped to the south at osm.org/way/19683796

Zooming in on the satellite imagery it looks like this is some sort of dam control structure. It spans the river but isn't a bridge.

91465040 almost 5 years ago

Thanks for making this change. Welcome to OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91465040

90325521 almost 5 years ago

Sorry about that, @woodpeck. The Copper Country State Forest isn't rendering in Carto and so I was aligning its tagging with the other Michigan State Forests that *do* render, like Escanaba osm.org/relation/1976420
In addition to removing landuse=forest, Version #2 of this relation changed from type=multipolygon to type=boundary. My hunch was that change may have broken rendering of this state forest.

The wiki at osm.wiki/Relation:boundary only talks about administrative boundaries, but I now see that osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area does list type=boundary as allowed for protected_areas.

I guess this relation has some other problem, though validation didn't find any errors.

89325558 almost 5 years ago

Hi Necessarycoot, I noticed that in a few places such as osm.org/node/7808378551 and osm.org/edit?node=7808378549#map=20/44.10506/-72.73082 you've added a ford crossing where there is no evidence of a ford (driving through the stream osm.wiki/Tag:ford%3Dyes ) in the satellite imagery. In this region *most* stream crossings are culverts (metal or concrete tunnels) or bridges and fords are usually only seen on farm/forestry tracks. If you can't determine whether there is a ford, culvert, or a bridge due to tree cover or poor imagery, its better to leave the warning unresolved than add possibly-wrong details.

Thanks, Adam

81472406 almost 5 years ago

Please don't add nodes with ford=yes simply to avoid validation error due to roads crossing streams. All of the supposed stream-crossing "fords" in this changeset are actually culverts under the roadway, not fords. When editing roadways if you cannot positively identify the type of crossing, please just leave the warning in place rather than adding a crossing type.

89809349 almost 5 years ago

Forgot to mention that I also sourced the Colby Hill ref=TH-13 and ownership=public from VCGI road centerline data: https://geodata.vermont.gov/datasets/VTrans::vt-road-centerline/data?geometry=-73.067%2C44.133%2C-72.973%2C44.144

87149662 about 5 years ago

Hi @ppjj, I just want to file a note that I don't believe that a consensus has been reached on the "proclamation boundaries" for national forests. While they aren't sign-posted on the the ground, they are as verifiable as other governmentally decreed boundaries (like state/county lines).

I'm not proposing that this boundary removal be reverted at this time, but recognise that a tagging scheme isn't yet solidified. This boundary may be appropriate to restore, but as a boundary=national_park or other tagging that doesn't include the incorrect protect_class=6.

On the affirmative side, removing this outer boundary makes the parcel-level rendering MUCH more easy to see and interpret, especially when near the proclamation boundary. :-)

Cheers,
Adam

84153003 about 5 years ago

("don't exist" should be "don't apply")

84153003 about 5 years ago

Hi @JaredBest, if you drew the buildings based on looking at the satellite imagery, then no, the Import Guidelines don't exist. If however you were to load the building footprints into JOSM from an external data source (Microsoft building footprints, State of NY building footprints, etc), then they would apply.

84837488 about 5 years ago

The description is not for advertising copy. Please locate business POIs at the actual location -- this looks to be placed in the roadway.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84837488

79260777 over 5 years ago

Hi waderoe, thanks for your contributions to OSM. I'm not sure if this was intended, but this driveway got added to a "site" relation which doesn't have much effect. You should probably remove the relation. Here's more info on site relations: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Relation:site&uselang=en-US
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/79260777

81584712 over 5 years ago

This changeset seems to have accidentally modified New York State in the US from a boundary to a road. This is invalid. A subsequent changeset has fixed this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81584712

81241983 over 5 years ago

Looks good now. :-) While there may be some routing applications that can navigate over areas, connecting linear highway=* ways ensures the best compatibility.