nice work adding sidewalks! this helps walkability routing. One quick tip is to add the surface tags if anything. Usually they're concrete. This helps greatly with wheelchair mapping. Cheers!

Hello again, nice work here. Keep it up. Thank you for your contributions!!

Hi there, Elliott here. Welcome to the OSM project. Nice work finding this house that's been removed! However, when removing buildings, be sure to leave the address point behind. That way the address can be reused. Even the vacant lot has an address. Cheers!

As far as converting goes, you could do it all en masse after the fact using some scripting if you feel up to it.

The ref code could be either, but in my experience the stop ID is "internal" to GTFS. if there is a number posted on the signs, it may not be the same. I'd spot check a few signs on mapillary or via survey and if they have a number posted, use that one. If the signs are unnumbered, you can also simply skip adding that internal number. It may not be as useful to the passenger to have a number displayed that has no meaning except to the agency.

Hi there, Elliott here with the OSMF Data Working Group. It is great that you are adding this transit data to the map. Thank you. However, there are some issues with the stop names that should be corrected. OSM policy is to not use street name abbreviations in any case. Predirectionals, postdirectionals, prefixes, and suffixes should all be expanded to their full format, for instance “Rankin Road & K Street …” in this case. Please address. If you are copying this data from other maps or GTFS, than I assume you have the necessary license/permission to do so, but do convert those names. If the platforms have a ref number, that matches with GTFS, you can add them if you’d like.

Thanks. This relation is growing a bit unwieldy

My old home turf! Nice work. Did you happen to walk by the new 2001 Aliceanna construction? When I was living in Canton and chair of the CCA's transportation committee, I helped ensure promenade access would be maintained during construction for walkers/bikes. I haven't been down there much lately and wondered if construction is done and if that path is reopened.

Peter, thanks for this observation. destination or customers is a better fit. (Dating myself here) last time I was there it was not an active museum, it was just closed to the public all the time. No further objections from me here.

Peter, you are right, I think this does not meet the definition of religious landuse. I did not check the wiki first. Would it be better as commercial, or something else?

Unrelated to our discussion on the university tag, I took a class at Loyola back when I was at TU and I recall we were not allowed to drive onto the Evergreen campus, certainly cars were not as it is gated. Is that not the case any more? (I saw you had removed the motor_vehicle=private tag). I tagged that this way because regular access=private would block peds and I think they don't mind folks walking around in there, just as JHU is an open campus.

Thanks for the work here! I added some of these trails around 6 years ago. I love to see them improved by the community.

Hi Ray, thanks for the message! Things have evolved a bit on this front, at least in the US, in terms of consensus.

I recommend tagging any naturally woody areas, regardless of ownership, as natural=wood. Then, for groves of trees that are planted for lumber production (typically in nice rows), I'd use the existing tag you have here, landuse=forest.

There are some other tags that some users have proposed that may be better but those ones are still a work in progress. For now, I would not hesitate to tag woods as natural=wood.

The cart paths on this edit do not exist.

This edit says "missing buildings added" yet four were deleted. Deleted is the opposite of added. Why?

Hi there, are the forests mapped in this update managed in the sense that they are looked after for lumber production and not naturally wooded lands?

Thanks,

Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Meant to do this one on my regular account.

RunTrails: This is not a correction, but rather a regression. This edit will be reverted. See osm.org/user_blocks/5827

Hi there, tell me about these ref tags. Are they signed references, e.g. trailblazed things that are visible on the ground, or rather a utility to help organize the routes in the relation editor tool. While I appreciate good order in the relations, the ref or name tag should not be used for any 'mapper' purpose. Those data types have some meaning (see osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions ) If you'd like to put stuff like that in a note, feel free, but for things that are not observable on the ground, please don't misuse the ref fields.

-- Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there, there is an issue with your edits on this challenge. Rather than following the instructions, you've made up a tag `bridge_ref`. The tag should be `bridge:ref=`. Further, the instructions said to split create bridges where there were none, not just add a meaningless node. What was your intent here?