Hi, these are actually geoglyphs that appear to be advertising a nearby POI. See the discussion in changeset 123447364.

I used the CD:NGI imagery layer, which is the “best” layer for this region. It was taken in 2012, but it’s the only available imagery taken off-season, when these markings would be visible instead of crops.

For now, I reverted this deletion in changeset 124707407, but if you have reason to believe that the markings have been removed since 2012 or know of a better way to tag them, please feel free to fix it again.

For future reference, here’s a recap of all the relations that I’ve fixed that were incompletely reverted by this changeset:

U.S. 2 in changeset 124171132
U.S. 6 in changeset 124155648
U.S. 9 in changeset 124171210
U.S. 10 in changeset 124177930
U.S. 25 in changeset 124176718
U.S. 29 in changeset 124176907
U.S. 33 in changeset 124178051
U.S. 34 in changeset 124178186
U.S. 35 in changeset 124172891
U.S. 41 in changeset 124171800
U.S. 44 in changeset 124157306
U.S. 45 in changeset 124170474
U.S. 52 in changeset 124155180
U.S. 56 in changeset 124179111
U.S. 59 in changeset 124171561
U.S. 60 in changeset 124178687
U.S. 61 in changeset 124157802
U.S. 62 in changeset 124158939

Changeset 104513531 incorrectly conflated U.S. 13 Bus. with U.S. 13. The latter was restored in changeset 124180464.

Changesets 104473758 through 104586385 removed some ways from route relations entirely instead of pushing them down to subrelations. I’ve attempted to add as many as I could find to the subrelations, but some gaps may remain.

Much less importantly, this changeset sorted each superrelation’s members by name or relation ID, whereas it had previously been common to arrange them geographically. I’ve restored the geographical sorting for consistency with other route networks.

Finally, this changeset replaced type=route with type=superroute. In the course of reverting the major issues above, this tag has been changed back to type=route. type=superroute has its adherents, but it generally isn’t used in the U.S., since the distinction makes little sense when the combination of multi-state routes with two or more signposted directions can result in multi-level relation structures. (If anything, the topmost relation is the route per se; everything below it is mere route segments.)

I think this should more or less take care of everything that was broken in changesets 104473758 through 104846286, so you won’t keep getting messages about it from me. :-)

If you need help with anything else relation-wise, please let me know or swing by OSMUS Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) to chat with the community about it.

Hi, I reverted this change as part of changeset 124155648 for consistency with other relations that nest each direction under the state’s route superrelation. Hope that isn’t a problem!

Changeset 124154479 restores the full U.S. 50 relation.

Hi, I noticed you’ve retagged many of the streets in downtown Knoxville as highway=living_street. Living streets are a largely European concept that rarely if ever occurs in the U.S. – very low-speed streets that tolerate cars but are primarily intended for pedestrians, who have the right of way. There’s a special sign for it and everything. osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street

During the pandemic, some mappers did stretch this tag to include “slow streets” programs that encouraged outdoor dining on city streets, though most of those programs have since been curtailed. Has this been the case in Knoxville?

I traced these geoglyphs from South Africa CD:NGI Aerial imagery, which is the default imagery layer in this area. (I think it’s supposed to be an advertisement for a roadhouse.)

This change has been reverted for a second time in changeset 123539571. Your company’s data is outdated and contradicts newer information that I have gathered from repeated field surveys.

For proof, please see the following:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Union_Pacific_Warm_Springs_Corridor_Quiet_Zone_-_Jackson_Street_facing_railroad_crossing.jpg
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/transit/union-pacific-warm-springs-corridor-quiet-zone

Please update your systems to stop flagging this crossing as a two-way road. Thank you.

The Bing and Esri imagery showing the fallen tree is from late 2020, according to the metadata for those images. None of the other layers offer such metadata but are most likely older.

Thanks for taking care of the retagging so quickly. The idea that a one-off trip could prove decisive against years of inactivity boggles my mind. There’s a parallel discussion in Slack about when to call a road under construction versus no-access with a very different conclusion. But with rail, I suppose any state of disrepair can be temporarily mitigated with enough resources, staff, and… intention.

I retagged the fallen tree as removed in changeset 123344330 based on the understanding that this segment was the only way last year‘s demonstration train could’ve made it to Santa Cruz. I can’t find any timestamped imagery to corroborate it yet.

These had been the only railroad=* ways in California with maxspeed not explicitly set to miles per hour, so at this point we can enter these values in mph without having to convert or worry about misinterpretation.

I’m still genuinely curious about the best way to tag a wigwag. In this changeset, I used crossing:light=wigwag, but maybe it should be a separate node representing the device itself, since it’s so rare.

I’m happy to retag the specific portions that have had this occasional service. I thought I was merely acting on the note that was added in changeset 67040694.

It wasn’t clear to me from my research that this occasional service extends all the way from Santa Cruz to Capitola. In fact, the TAMC document I cited above states that there is indeed an isolated segment of active rail from Santa Cruz north, with the segment from Santa Cruz to Watsonville being unmaintained and out of service. However, that was 2020, and I’m happy to hear that there have been developments since.

Retagging the trackage all the way to Watsonville would raise some questions that hopefully you can shed more light on:

1. Is the old-school wigwag on Seabright Avenue still in operation? I have no idea how to tag it if so.

2. Does this tree still block the tracks south of the old county landfill? osm.org/way/1074882241 It would be surprising to tag an impassable railway as anything but disused. By that logic, any railbanked trackage would be railway=rail.

3. What are the speed limits on this stretch? It had been mistagged maxspeed=40, which presumably meant 40 mph, for Class 3. But FRA records for crossings along this stretch give limits of 10 mph freight / 15 mph passenger, in line with Class 1 and consistent with the TAMC document.

Hi, are you sure this Costco has solar panels on its roof? All I see in aerial imagery is the skylights.

Separately, please try to provide more descriptive changeset comments when possible. It doesn’t have to be incredibly thorough, but for example here it would’ve been helpful to mention the giant solar panels. Thanks for understanding!

…added bridges, culverts; realigned roads, streams

Neat, mini runways! osm.org/way/1060140555

The crossing had already been mapped; this changeset indicates that the crossing is uncontrolled.

More context in https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/openstreetmap-americana/issues/428#issuecomment-1159349224

Only the end of this street is a one-way street, as demonstrated by the stop sign and other signs facing in the other direction. Reverted in changeset 122640545.

Hi, should the speed limit on this bridge be 10 mph, as opposed to 10 km/h as it’s currently tagged?

Hi, thanks for adding these speed limits. Remember to add a space and “mph” to the end of the maxspeed tag value so that routers interpret it as miles per hour instead of kilometers per hour. Thanks!

Also adjusted the position of various POIs.

Undone in changeset 122300376.