CAGIS 2019 imagery was a source for some of these changes.

CAGIS 2019 imagery was a source for some of these changes.

CAGIS 2019 was the imagery source.

The source for these changes is CAGIS orthoimagery.

CAGIS imagery was also a source for this changeset.

The source for these changes is CAGIS.

Also used CAGIS 2019 orthophotography.

The source for these buildings is CAGIS 2019 orthophotography.

Please do not make up speed limits. This ramp has no posted legal speed limit (maxspeed), but it does have a posted advisory speed limit of 45 mph, as seen in https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tMywszjoCPjT8wasXyxYXV . Changeset 75074837 removes the 65 mph speed limit tag and replaces it with a 45 mph advisory speed limit tag. I wouldn’t be surprised if people regularly go 65 mph on the straightaway, but freeflow traffic speeds belong in a separate database, not OSM. If the navigation application’s warning is undesired, that is an issue to take up with either the software developers or TxDOT.

Continued the discussion on changeset 74378574.

Hi, would you mind double-checking the tags you used on these bike share stations? They aren’t tagged correctly and won’t render on the map as a result. Bike share stations should be tagged like this:

amenity=bicycle_rental
name=* (not station=*)
network=Kaupunkipyörät
network:wikidata=Q28129102

In general, if you want to indicate the city and country that a given feature is located inside, you would use the “is_in:city” and “is_in:country” tags. The “country” tag is reserved for things like embassies and flagpoles that are associated with a particular country.

Anyways, for bike share stations, there’s no need to tag the city and country, because the “network” tag is more specific and a data consumer can detect that these features lie within the Helsinki administrative boundary.

Thank you for your help in keeping the map tidy!

Thanks for spotting this error. I had intended to tag it as highway=turning_circle. Most likely I used the R key (repeat) but previously mistagged another node due to an overreliance on Potlatch 2’s autocompletion suggestions. Sometimes my keystrokes got inserted out of order due to asynchronous keystroke handling in the Flash plugin.

Fixed in changeset 74320023. Hopefully there aren’t too many more instances where I made this error.

The source for the boundary changes was CAGIS: https://data.cincinnati-oh.gov/Thriving-Healthy-Neighborhoods/Cincinnati-Community-Council-Boundaries/6aci-7ivg

(Typo: I’ve gone ahead and reverted this changeset in changeset 73733859.)

US 52 follows Central Parkway and Central Avenue rather than I-75, as seen in Mapillary street-level imagery dating back years and right up to a few hours ago:

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/h-IatpGTq5GIAe8bWxlquw
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/C0n9JFishlW1iCgKayLVQw
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/NnEwrjmD1XKZoxCi90nC2Q
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/UEMqcorPlIHdTdTAosmFZA
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/gjt3_UldwJH7iRt4ZrlZmw

I’ve gone ahead and reverted changeset 73733859 until there’s evidence that the route has actually changed.

You may want to double-check the other edits you’ve made across Ohio. The name and ref tags should be consistent with route relations and should reflect what’s signposted on the ground. There are other ways to indicate proposed or scheduled changes. If you have any questions, please reach out to me or ask in the #ohio channel of slack.openstreetmap.us.

This road already had “SR 56” in the ref tag. There’s no need for a name tag in this case. Reverted in changeset 73733044.

Thanks!

It kind of does look like that from aerial imagery. However, it’s probably less rigorous in terms of traffic education, meant more for exercise. There’s also a little parking lot within it that’s cleverly patterned as a ruler. If I knew for sure that the school uses tricycles there, I’d tag it as a cycleway, but for all I know they could be using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Coupe or electric kiddie cars (which are similar to golf carts).

This way was originally added in changeset 61515999 by another local mapper who may have more context.

Oh that’s even better. By the way, do you know how far this preserve extends? I tried to guess based on any clear property lines I could see from aerial imagery, but I came up quite short compared to the official acreage.

Hi, thanks for your edits in the area. When aligning roads and other features, please switch the background imagery to OSIP 6in Most Current Available, which is newer, higher-resolution, and better aligned. Thanks!