Regarding the fixmes on misaligned buildings, it’s a much broader issue: back in 2009 or so, I drew many buildings in Cincinnati by tracing Yahoo! Aerial Imagery in Potlatch 1. Yahoo! imagery was already grainy at zoom level 17, and Potlatch 1 lacked a way to square the corners of an area. So it’s a mess. Rather than individually tagging each of those buildings, perhaps you’d be interested in helping with phase 2 (manual conflation) of osm.wiki/Hamilton_County_Building_Import ? Some of the buildings you tagged with fixme came from the CAGIS dataset, which seems to be based on LiDAR, so I’d expect them to be very well aligned in general.

Hi, please use Maxar imagery if what you see in this area doesn’t match OSIP 6in. OSIP 6in is the most up-to-date high-resolution imagery in the area, but Bing and Maxar are more up-to-date.

If you’re referring to osm.org/way/37511419, that way was originally added in osm.org/changeset/1785400 based on Yahoo! Aerial Imagery (grainy even at zoom level 17). Your efforts to clean up my early edits are greatly appreciated!

Reverted in changeset 93354848.

Hi, I undid this change in changeset 93343612. It looks like you meant to add a business to the map, but instead you renamed a street to the business name, which makes it impossible to locate. Please add the business at the correct location on the map so that people can find it. Thank you!

Hi, thanks for cleaning up the road geometry in this area. As you do so in Ohio, please refer to the OSIP 1ft and OSIP 6in layers whenever available. The OSIP 1ft layer is not as current as OSIP 6in, but both OSIP layers are more consistently and accurately aligned than other available layers. You can also refer to this table to decide on the right layer for the task at hand: osm.wiki/Ohio#Resources . Thanks for your attention to this detail!

Certainly, there was a bit of whimsy to the city posting this sign when opening the bridge in 1983, but it is serious enough to be mapped in OSM based on what we currently know. I’ll humor you with my best understanding of the situation, though I’m by no means a lawyer, and OSM’s general disclaimer particularly applies in ambiguous cases like this. [1]

First of all, it’s pretty unlikely that someone would be cited or taken to court for merely driving too many beasts of burden across it or allowing them to run rampant. However, local authorities do take people to court for damaging bridges with their vehicles or loads, especially if it involves a historic bridge structure or an egregious violation. In such a case, this sign might be considered as prima facie evidence in favor of a restriction, though there would be mitigating factors.

Strongsville ordinance 434.05 authorizes the city to enforce a speed limit on this bridge, and it doesn’t limit that authority to motorized vehicles. [2] Other ordinances cover wonton disregard for the safety of property when operating a vehicle. The Cuyahoga County board of county commissioners or Cleveland Metroparks may have also issued a relevant ordinance or order.

A defendant might be able to argue that the sign doesn’t conform to the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD), as authorized by the Ohio Revised Code section 4511.11. [3] That alone doesn’t automatically make the sign unenforceable: after all, there are plenty of nonstandard traffic signs all over the state, especially at parks and airports. But a defendant might claim that the sign’s contents and construction are so unusual that the sign appears to be decorative. I’m not familiar enough with case law to know how much weight that argument would carry.

This sign isn’t entirely hypothetical. It’s effectively a speed limit for users of the nearby Bridle Trail and All-Purpose Trail. It also isn’t unique: an identical sign posted on a covered bridge in Illinois [4], and a street in Neschers, France, also has a walking-speed limit for horses. [5]

As for the distinction between driving a horse and allowing it to gallop unfettered, OSM doesn’t seem to have an established way to tag restrictions or exceptions related to who accompanies a person or vehicle. I’ve encountered plenty of conventional signs that can’t be fully tagged for this reason. [6]

Given the ambiguity of the situation, I was inclined to map the sign and its ostensible effect based on the on-the-ground rule and rely on end users to determine the level of risk they’d want to incur by violating the signposted restriction.

[1] osm.wiki/Disclaimer
[2] https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/strongsville/latest/strongsville_oh/0-0-0-32199
[3] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.11
[4] http://geographicallyyours.blogspot.com/2019/07/princeton-illinois-usa.html
[5] osm.org/way/137321605
[6] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ONdQuzIu5wDqamt8s-esuw

Most fire stations have a reference number assigned either by the department itself or by a larger district or county. I think it’s entirely appropriate to use ref=* for that reference number.

Or are you commenting on the inclusion of the number in the name? I didn’t add that. It came from osm.org/node/3040281233/history and I just converted it to an area.

Anyhow, I disagree that a store receipt name is equivalent. People don’t refer to stores by number in normal conversation, but they often do for fire stations, especially in technical contexts. In this case, the sign just says the fire department’s name, but I’ve mapped many fire stations that have the station name on the sign, including the number.

Hi, thanks for making this golf course so detailed! osm.org/changeset/92923787 fixes some issues with this golf course. Specifically, if it’s OK to drive a golf cart along a road, add the golf_cart=yes tag to the road instead of drawing a new golf cart path that overlaps with it. Also, the various parts of this golf course were tagged as golf courses in their own right, which resulted in lots of golf course icons. It’s enough to add a golf=* tag plus the appropriate natural=water or landuse=grass tag. Software that uses OSM can figure out that these things are inside the golf course. Thanks again for your diligence, and let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks for indicating that there was a bogus road here. I deleted the road in osm.org/changeset/92800276 . You can select a road and delete it by pressing Ctrl+Backspace in Windows or Cmd+Delete in macOS. (You may need to zoom out a bit so the whole road is visible first.)

This change didn’t have the effect you probably intended. Multi-use paths in the U.S. are most commonly mapped as bike trails or walkways depending on what they’re more widely known as. iD has a separate section to indicate specifically whether pedestrians, cyclists, and horseback riders are allowed. In this case, by changing the trails to paths, no router can be confident that either pedestrians or cyclists are allowed.

Oh! That was a typo – thanks for catching it. Fixed in changeset 92454686.

Changeset 92454266 reverts this changeset along with changesets 92260890 and 92260895. I’ve once again restored the payment:i-pass=* key to distinguish the similarly named iPASS and I-PASS payment methods. See also this discussion: osm.wiki/Talk:Key:payment#Ambiguous_subkeys

The “yes” is because the street-level imagery was just clear enough to tell that it was a relative “Weight Limits Reduced” sign, but not clear enough to see the actual percentage that the weight limit was reduced by.

It’s quite strange, but true: osm.org/user/Minh%20Nguyen/diary/394347

Hi, should the weight limit on this bridge be expressed in short tons (U.S. tons), as indicated by the maxaxleload tag on way 223438984? (If not, metric tonnes would use the “t” suffix or no suffix at all.)

…idges; reclassified alleys

Thanks, changeset 91562371 reverts some smaller segments that had also been mistagged.

Named landuse=residential areas are the best way to map these residential developments, since they have well-defined boundaries and usually well-known names and are predominately given over to a single kind of land use.

However, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say place=neighbourhood is never warranted for an American-style planned development. These developments can vary in from a few houses to the size of a small city and can be further subdivided into named sections. Some subdivisions have corresponding census-designated places (boundary=census) due to their population or relative isolation.

(By the way, note that these signposted subdivisions are usually distinct from the legal subdivisions tracked by county tax authorities. Typically a developer combines multiple legal subdivisions to create a marketable subdivision. These legal subdivisions have names that a resident would only see when looking at their title. I don’t know if anyone has mapped them systematically, but that might also be a poor candidate for place=* nodes.)

…ion from abandoned railroad; LMST is a bike route