Do you have a source for the abandoned Cincinnati Subway that you’ve drawn? It looks like you included a small loop around the present-day Fountain Square, but according to http://www.thecincinnatisubway.com/p/map.html , the subway never made it south of Central Parkway. I’m also unable to find anything claiming that there was ever supposed to be a loop around this block.

More information at osm.wiki/TIGER_fixup#Road_names

Please note that this change and any changes like it are incorrect. TIGER places a space after “O” because it can’t encode apostrophes, but there is always an apostrophe and no space after “O” at the beginning of Irish surnames.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA is from the Downtown Mountain View station. (I took it from the comfort of a second-story seat on Caltrain.) The new signage has also gone up along the 1st St. corridor, if not elsewhere, though it isn’t reflected in Mapillary or OpenStreetCam yet.

The current plan of record is illustrated at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VTA_Light_Rail_map_after_NTSP.svg , based on VTA documents. Full information about the New Transit Service Plan is at http://newtransitplan.vta.org/ .

I think the new signage went up prematurely (or proactively) because BART’s timelines keep slipping. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that it’s being phased in, starting with the least critical station signage. Departure boards and onboard signage will probably be the last to change.

site_ownership=regional on boundary=protected_area may be workable, though it’s considerably more ambiguous than admin_level=4. It sounds like county parks would also be tagged boundary=protected_area site_ownership=regional.

Since it appears that you systematically removed admin_level=4 without any replacement from state parks across the U.S., would you mind adding site_ownership=regional to the parks you touched? It’s difficult for anyone else to do it because you edited each park in its own changeset. If not, a listing or GeoJSON of the parks you touched would be fine; then the community could coordinate changes on our end, either using Maproulette or something more manual.

Finally, please note that admin_level=* certainly may be used on features that are not boundary=administrative or boundary=*. admin_level=* is a secondary tag that can be applied in combination with various primary tags, not all of which are boundary=*. This much is clear from osm.wiki/Key:admin_level and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/admin_level#combinations .

There’s nothing illegal about a curly apostrophe.

I’m not sure I understand. This is a state park, not a national park. admin_level=4 was used to clarify that the boundary is for a state park, despite the (admittedly confusing) boundary=national_park tag. The admin_level tag didn’t indicate that this *is* a state; that would require boundary=administrative.

The combination of boundary=national_park + admin_level=4 was common in the U.S. before you systematically removed all the admin_level tags. Since you disagree with the admin_level tags on non-administrative boundaries, do you have a preferred, machine-readable way to distinguish national parks from state parks? In many cases, state parks are functionally equivalent to national parks, just with a different level of ownership.

Without a replacement tagging scheme, I would be tempted to revert this and similar changes, since it’s unlikely that a data consumer would mistakenly treat boundary=national_park admin_level=4 as a state administrative boundary.

Clarification: The Mountain View–Winchester line will be an O in an orange circle after BART opens, so some signs have been updated to that instead.

Unlike the other routes that have been entered, route 11 is designated and signposted by the City of San José. I’ve never actually seen a VTA map that indicates route numbers; do you know where they come from?

The VTA LRT maps are posted on information boards at each station, so it’s no different than signage as far as I’m concerned.

I do consider publications distributed on the spot to satisfy the “on the ground” rule. For example, I often add contact information to business POIs based on receipts I’ve gathered. On the other hand, I draw the line at planning documents that one has to go out of their way to obtain; tags like unsigned_ref and official_name are more appropriate for those cases.

By the way, last year, VTA started replacing the color-coded destination icons with color-coded route icons on station signage. For example, the Mountain View–Winchester line is now represented by a B in a blue circle. But it’s in a state of limbo until BART Silicon Valley comes into service and the routes are reconfigured: onboard the trains, the routes are still posted and announced the old way, by destination, and the VTA’s website still shows the destination icons.

Compare the old and new sign designs:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/cidGJeIL_L4FuTfv9HMm2A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/gm-HoE1ONioHi2NUQPHA4A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA

I originally didn’t intend to map bike route 11 in this changeset, but as I went looking for the “Welcome to San Jose” archway along Monterey Rd. (which sadly seems to have been taken down), I encountered the BEGIN and END signs for bike route 11 at the San José/Morgan Hill city limit.

The bike route 11 signs are visible all along the road in Mapillary imagery (going southbound) and OpenStreetCam imagery (going northbound). I used the Mapillary sign layer to more easily locate the signs, and the Mapbox layer was just on as a matter of course. (I used that layer for pinpointing city limit signs that I came across, also in this changeset.)

Bike route 11 is San José’s first signposted crosstown bike route. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5417#page=2 To my knowledge, other routes that have been entered so far are only found on maps published by VTA and aren’t officially numbered. So I’m considering removing the refs from those routes.

Toy cars or tricycles, rather.

I think it’s intended for toy tricycles or something along those lines. It’s part of a playground.

Please do not move the location of a motorway_junction as in this changeset at the 101/87 interchange. The freeway had already been mapped with turn lanes, but this changeset incorrectly moved the beginning of the ramp to before the beginning of the turn lane, effectively deleting the turn lane data from the map as far as routers are concerned.

The motorway_junction node should be placed no sooner than the point at which the ramp begins to split from the main highway. Use the turn:lanes tag to indicate a turn lane that hasn’t split from the highway yet.

Yes, that’s what I meant to do. Thanks!

The admin_level=4 tag was intended to clarify that this boundary=national_park does not, in fact, represent a national park but rather a state park. With the removal of the admin_level tag, it may be necessary to indicate its lesser importance in some other way, such as a different boundary tag.

Unfortunately, Mapillary sign detections can be unreliable, too. In my experience, in an urban area, you end up always having to check out the actual Mapillary imagery, using the sign overlay only as a guide.

I was going through speed limit sign detections in this neighborhood last night (which is how I stumbled upon this change), and there were spurious speed limit detections that were actually phone numbers on business signs or even the little signs above beg buttons at crosswalks.

The locations can also be way off. Code for San José contributed side- and rear-facing imagery as well as front-facing imagery, so Mapillary gets confused by a side street’s speed limit sign in peripheral view.

Did the note say this road has a 15 mph speed limit? That would’ve been mistaken; the road actually has a 30 mph speed limit. I wonder if the author of the note had gotten confused with the light rail speed limits near here.

Are you sure the location of the label should be over city hall in each of these cities? In some cities, the commonly accepted center of the city is a public square or beginning of the street grid.

What in Sam Hill is going on here? I’m seeing comments between you two flying by in the changeset comment tracker and it really stands out among the constructive comments that otherwise turn up. Clearly, there are hurt feelings and a total breakdown in trust.

I’m not even sure I want to know who originally started this whole flamewar and where, but the ad hominem attacks, name-calling, backhanded compliments, etc. need to stop. Both of you have been contributing to this project long enough to know that the tone of this discussion is inappropriate. With the decentralized nature of communications in this project, there’s not much point in anyone blocking one or both of you; you’d just migrate elsewhere. But it would be a shame if you get burnt out and stop contributing and even worse if your dispute discourages others from contributing too.

I’d encourage you both to take a break – from communicating with each other, from discussing the tags that you’ve been disagreeing over, even a temporary break from OSM – whatever it takes to get past this episode. Take the long view: in a month, will you be proud that you won the argument or frustrated that you spent so much time and energy doing so? In five years, will you feel as strongly about your differences over these tags? Tags could look totally different by then!