*It is correct, surprisingly.*

It is correct, unsurprisingly. In New Jersey, most highway and freeways are unlit. Only place they are lit are generally intersections and/or "in town".

Ugh, so close. I thought it was vacant, but yeah, should be disused. You are correct, I agree with you.

Thanks for catching my error, explaining and correcting.

No problem! I try to tackle the latest notes, killing off the easy ones or spam ones, then addressing easy ones and then going through to get the other ones in that area.

Soon, we shall have a lot less open notes. And by soon, I mean years, and by less I mean, maybe 3k less. Lol.

I wasn't sure if you were going to add these or leave them open like others. There was nothing in the notes to imply you were going to add them. My apologies, I have no problem just ignoring your notes in the future.

Luckily, you are more than welcome to add additional details. It isn't like I missed any info that was in the notes. All the info that was added is now on the map. You can definitely flesh it out and add whatever info that you want to add that was not in the note. nothing wrong with that.

Should be Iowa. Good catch - state=IA

updated.

osm.org/changeset/123829699

Reverted it. I'll leave it to you to update when the black tape gets removed! :D

Who knows, someone not registered? All their Exit Numbers they put in notes are wrong.

I reverted the changeset.

It's been a while since I have done highway exits. Weird that it doesn't show destination as a default field.

I'm not actually sure if new signs have gone up. I believe I read sometime 2020, but then it got delayed? Do you think this edit should be reverted since if it hasn't gone up yet?

"Anonymous" is putting wrong exit numbers in comments anyways.

You would be correct. My bad. ID didn't show a name for the building, just that it was a government building. Completely missed it.

Hi Yuliya, it looks like you put the building through a blender.

Also, why was the building made round when it is clearly square on the satellite imagery.

Would it be ok if I revert this to undo the mess? Thanks.

If you disagree with the guidelines, then I suggest you get those guidelines changed for whatever you believe in. If the guidelines are wrong, then that is between you and the guidelines...

Yes, exactly. Thanks for understanding. Only the ones that go through houses, buildings, roads etc. where it is clear there is nothing left.

In areas with thick trees where I am not sure, I am leaving the razed railways since it is possible they were left to rot and decay.

I definitely see the value in keeping abandoned rails. For example, we have some near where I live that are clearly abandoned and have been for decades. But the rail is mostly there, ties are there, just overgrown. Visible on satellite imagery, and would be useful for SAR or others to know there is are still rails there.

There is reason. And it is apparent. there are no traces remaining in satellite data or on the ground.

If we are going to go based on terrain data for what we used to be there, are we then going to start mapping former woods, old river paths, long-gone road alignments? What about all those new land areas that used to be underwater but soil was added and it is now above water? Would that be "ocean=razed"?

I argue that old road alignments are useful. It will still feel like a road corridor.

As for the razed woods, idk, housing projects don't feel like woods, anymore than non-existent rails feel like railways. But I guess we should get started doing all those razed woods, razed meadows, razed roadways, razed buildings and razed trees.

Not sure how that is relevant, but yes I have, lived down the street for a few years. Still visit occasionally...

Have you, yourseld, been to Batavia? What about Chili? or Scottsville? Henrietta?

But they don't exist and have no remnants on the latest satellite imagery. Non-existent items should not be mapped. They have no traces remaining, no ties, signals or other objects. All wiki pages, OSM practices and guidance outline that only things that exist or have some form of trace (ties, rails, signals, etc.) that meet the definition of "razed" should be mapped.

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer

If we're going to map what used to be railways, we need to start mapping the former paths of waterways, such as rivers. What about woods that have since been cut down. I think we need to start adding natural=wood + wood=razed to all the farmlands and golf courses. What about all the former alignment of roadways and what clearly used to be roadways?

I've been a lot of places, but there is definitely no railway, abandoned, razed or orther wise, that goes through people's living rooms, across freeways, or through schools.

I don't see how this is so difficult...

If it doesn't physically exist in the world, it shouldn't be mapped on OSM. You wouldn't map buildings that were demolished decades ago or keep old road alignments for "historic" purposes or because it shows up on the renderer. What about all the old airport configurations? Or the old countries and buildings pre-WWII? Or shoot, by that logic, what the landuse was 50 years ago? "It

It isn't personal principle, it is OSM guidance and is the golden rule of OSM. It is pretty simple. There is no "out of principle", it is all in accordance to the guidelines. If you are still struggling with this practice of OSM, I suggest you read:

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

and

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground

OSM guidance makes your argument "The point of having them in OSM is to render them in openrailwaymap.org" completely invalid. You wouldn't map buildings such that the data is garbage to make it look better or do fantasy maps of how you would like to see the rail placed according to your "ideal" imagination. I suggest you read this section as well:
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer

This isn't just "a single line", these are many lines that are go through people's bedrooms, are snapped to roadways (incorrectly), and otherwise just do not exist anymore. You're right, this is no different than an old city layout from the 1940s. They are both incorrect and should not be mapped since they are not what exists in 2022. That's what OHM is for.

All of the wiki pages, even the ones for abandoned railways highlight that ONLY rails that actually exist or have some remnant, such as ties should be mapped. None of these rails have ANY remaining railways. Sure, you might be able to guess where they USED to lay, but they have long since be removed.

Please stop reverting changes for "historical" reasons and adding things that do not exist. If this continues, I will have no choice but to bring this up to the DWG.

This is not vandalism, and it is sad you see it that way. But re-adding and adding ways that do not physically exist on the ground is vandalism.

There is no physical presence on the ground with the latest satellite imagery.

These rails are not visible. Why are you readding things that do not exist?

If you could provide a bit more details in your changeset comments, that would be awesome. Even just "improved landuse areas" would be 10000% more helpful than just "areas".

Thanks