Please specify a source for this data.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121158250

Hi, welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contribution!

The edit looks good, but it helps other mappers verify data when you specify a source for the information you add. If you're local to the area, and have some sort of knowledge through that, you can just specify "local knowledge" in the source field when uploading your changeset. Thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120722065

It appears that this is just a house, and not a business that any customer would visit in person. These types of businesses should not be mapped on OSM. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll remove this from the map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120444136

Please use more descriptive changeset comments, and provide your sources.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120867496

I just noticed that this changeset contains a lot more than just that route I was talking about. To be specific, I'm looking at Old NY-356.

Hi,

"Not reported" isn't the best changeset comment. If you're developing for this app, could you take a look at this? Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120385108

Hi,

I'm going to revert the classification change, and I'm going to revert horse=no.

Even for parts of this road that are relatively grade separated, intersections are sprinkled in here and there. Also, lanes are narrower than expected for a motorway, turns are tighter, etc. Most of the road probably doesn't meet motorway criteria for this reason.

horse=no is just a bit obvious. I think any data consumer could assume that this is the case on an expressway in New York. A mapper putting horse=no on a case like this for the reason of "oh, well of course you can't ride a horse on this expressway" isn't much different from a data consumer making the same deduction.

foot=no and bicycle=no I'll leave on, as this is somewhat more likely of a case to have, even if still pretty unlikely for an expressway.

Hi,

I think that this data is better suited for OpenHistoricalMap. OSM is supposed to be for things that currently exist.

I know that you've added other routes like this. Why are you adding them? Is it for Wikipedia? If so, I know that there's another way to create maps for it (has to do with KML I believe), so please look at this when adding map data to Wikipedia pages.

I would like to eventually remove these old routes from OSM, or at least the ones that have no trace left in the real world. For example, something like historic US-66 should remain on the map, since it's currently signed as such. If you're using this data for Wikipedia pages, I'll wait a while so that you can transfer the data.

I appreciate the work that you're putting in, but there are consequences to mapping old features like this. Some maps are rendering these route numbers, which is definitely not good for users.

Thanks,
John

Thanks! Missed these when I updated the classification.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119313171

Thanks for being so responsive to changeset comments! Looks good to me.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119600565

Looks good, just one more thing I forgot: if the trail passes over something (e.g. water or marshy terain), you should also add a layer tag to show that it's elevated off the ground. Generally, anything with a bridge tag also gets a layer tag. Any value over 0 means that it's elevated.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119598789

Changeset looks good, but in the future, for driveways and swimming pools on private property, please add access=private.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119553965

It's been a little while since I've been on this trail. What exactly does this part look like? Does the wood carry the trail over some kind of water? If so, maybe it should be bridge=boardwalk or something similar.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119553865

Are you sure? It looks like it extends past where you truncated it to.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119357341

Thanks, good changeset. Just know that if you're sure the name is incorrect, you can also delete the corresponding "tiger:" tags. This helps keep things clean.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119315588

Hi,

You added destination:street=Croton Avenue, but this is not signed.

Hi,

Please don't put this kind of thing in the name. Instead, on the ramp, you should put "destination:ref=I 95 East". Thanks!

Good, just not sure about the overlapping baseball and soccer fields. This is a pretty common scenario, so I wonder if there's an accepted tagging approach.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119197604

Hi,

I think you've been drawing your guardrails backwards. The wiki says:

Guard rails along roadways typically have an inner and outer surface; the inner surface is smooth and faces the roadway, while the outer surface is typically where vertical struts are connected (see example picture in info-box). If there is a clear inner/outer demarcation to the guard rail, construct the line so that the right side is inner and left side is outer.

You seem to reliably be drawing it in the opposite way. Was this coincidental, or maybe you misinterpreted the wiki page?

Also, if you're going to be adding guard rails like this, please make sure that they're not glued to things beneath it, and make sure to set the layer tag on the guard rails.

I see now that you were doing this because you wanted to show that those parts of the path were covered. I get that, but the wiki page says "Do NOT use [covered=yes]...For objects in tunnels or passing under linear bridge features where vertical ordering is established by layer=* in combination with a suitable tag such as bridge=* or tunnel=*.".

I see that you reverted the covered=yes tagging, but left the nodes glued. I'll unglue them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115544744