Hi,

unsigned= is not a valid tag; unsigned_ref should be used instead.

Hi,

It looks like you added ref to the NJ-76C relation. This is not appropriate as it is an unsigned route, and already had unsigned_ref. I'll fix this one, but please do not do this in the future.

Hi,

Thanks for contributing. Please try to break your edits up into multiple changesets when changing geographic areas. Otherwise, it can make it more difficult for people to review it.

Hi,

Thanks for the contribution. In the future, please do not make up names for trails. If there are no signs that give a name for the trail, you should leave the name blank on OSM.

Hi,

Thanks for getting back so quickly. Just by looking at the map (I don't drive around here very often), I could see an argument for the road being trunk between the Meadowbrook and the Bethpage, since it potentially could offer a good connecting route between a number of motorways.

What I'm really trying to go after is roads that break this rule of the classification guidance:

The set of roads tagged highway=motorway or highway=trunk should collectively form a coherent network of interconnected roads, without dangling spurs or "islands" of disconnected roads.

So in this case, the western end of any potential trunk section should be the Meadowbrook, rather than the point where the road becomes divided. Generally speaking though, the "islands" (a trunk segment that never connects to a trunk or motorway) should basically always be avoided. A spur (a segment that begins at a trunk/motorway and never connects to another one) is sometimes justified (e.g. Nicolls Road, William Floyd Parkway), but they should be chosen carefully. In those two cases, there isn't really much farther to go before you hit the shore, so it makes sense.

I appreciate your work and your insights on the map, and I invite you to join the OSMUS Slack, so your voice can be heard in the community. We want to reach a consensus, rather than have people reverting each other's edits. If you decide to join, come join #local-newyorkstate and #highway-classification, where these topics are often discussed.

Thanks,
John

Hi,

Thank you for the contribution. In the future, please do not use the tag access=no in these situations. bicycle=no and foot=no is sufficient, and access=no can be interpreted as "no one, not even cars can go here".

Hi,

I see that you set highway=trunk on Woodside Ave here, presumably because it is limited access. expressway=yes is the right tag here, since the road is no more important in the network than the primary roads it connects to on each side.

Please see the following pages for more details:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance
osm.wiki/TMP-Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification

Best,
John

Hi,

It looks like you're marking roads as trunk simply because they're divided. Can you confirm that this is the case?

Physical characteristics should have no impact on the classification of a road, except for motorways. If a road is not quite a motorway, but is still very upgraded, it might deserve expressway=yes, but not necessarily highway=trunk. If the road is divided but still has a lot of access (e.g. driveways into shopping areas), it probably doesn't deserve expressway=yes either. You may however tag these as dual_carriageway=yes to mark this feature.

For more information on road classification tagging, please consult these pages:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance
osm.wiki/TMP-Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to help as best I can.

Best,
John

Hi,

Unfortunately I've had to revert the classification changes in this changeset because they go against the current state classification guidelines. I've left the motorway junctions that you added though, since I don't know of any consensus on whether turn-arounds should get that tag.

In New York State, classifications are mostly based on the ACC codes provided by the NYSDOT. For more details, please see this page: osm.wiki/TMP-Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification

Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have question or comments.

Best,
John

Hi,

Unfortunately I've had to revert your last several edits because they go against the current state classification guidelines.

Since 2021, there has been a push to reserve motorway and trunk for the most important roads, regardless of how many lanes they have, whether they are a freeway or not, etc. For example, NY-384 through downtown Niagara Falls is trunk even though it's a surface street, since it's the best route to use to go over the Rainbow Bridge and get to Canada. In contrast, the LaSalle Expressway and Niagara Scenic Parkway are not important long-haul routes, and would be classified as primary with expressway=yes to denote their upgraded construction.

In New York State, classifications are mostly based on the ACC codes provided by the NYSDOT. For more details, please see this page: osm.wiki/TMP-Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification

Again, I'm sorry to have to revert your work. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions or comments.

Best,
John

Hi Mateusz,

Good catch. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I added that, it should definitely be just motor_vehicle. Feel free to change it if you'd like.

Hi AlexMQ,

Great edit! I don't think there's any real criticism I can give, since everything is pretty spot-on, but there are a couple notes that I have.

First of all, for imagery, I see that you used Mapbox Satellite. In my experience, Mapbox tends to have the highest resolution, but is severely outdated (something like 10 years old I believe), and sometimes has issues with its projection (e.g. things appearing at an angle, bridges appear cut in two pieces). For this reason, I will sometimes use Mapbox as a secondary imagery source, but not without creating an offset to align it with my primary source, and verifying that nothing has changed too much in the area I'm mapping (since the imagery is old).

I tend to use NYS Orthos Online (called NYSDOP Orthoimagery in iD) as my main imagery, since it's provided by the state and they have a pretty good program. Unlike some other commercial imagery sources, this source is very consistent across the state. Bing is very good these days in cities, but in rural areas it can be really bad. Anyway, I'd recommend using NYS Orthos when it's good enough, but I will admit that its resolution isn't as good as others. When you need the extra resolution, I'd recommend trying Bing first, and then Mapbox, both with an offset to NYS Orthos if possible.

Another note I have is that in case you aren't using one already, there are plugins that automate the creation of grids like the parking spaces you added. I would highly recommend using them if you make more edits like this in the future, as they make the work dozens of times faster.

Also, try to specify your source for data beyond what is apparent from imagery. In JOSM, you can add this in the source box which by default just has your imagery used. Some common ones include "survey" (used by StreetComplete, generally considered to be the strongest source), "local knowledge" (for things where you might not have gone to the site and inspected closely, but you know about since you live in the area), or even just a link to the website that you found the information from. If you knew this information from local knowledge, you could format the source field as "Mapbox Satellite;local knowledge".

Anyway, great edit, thanks for putting so much thought into your work!

Best,
John

Hi,

You seem to have added wetlands around the water that was already there. You should probably use a multipolygon in this case so that the two features aren't layered on top of each other.

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Thanks for contributing.

Unfortunately, I had to revert the part of this changeset that worked on the intersection. Unless the roads can't be driven on, you should never leave them fragmented and disconnected like this. Even a rough guess is better than not mapping it at all.

If you're not sure how to map something, the wiki is a great place to look. You can also send me a message anytime if you're lost on something.

Thanks again for contributing!
-John

No worries, OSM is definitely the exception in this regard when compared to other maps. See here for more info: osm.wiki/Abbreviations

Hi,

It's been quite a while, so you may have figured this out already, but you shouldn't include abbreviations in street names like you've done here. Thanks for the contribution though; I'll fix it now.

Best,
John

Thanks for writing back so fast! I was able to fix it.

I do have a question about the road though: do the street signs actually say that this short segment is "Wilson Park Drive"? I see that it was newly built, relative to the rest of the street.

Hi,

Please make sure not to abbreviate when adding new road names. In this case, "Wilson Park Drive" would be correct, instead of "Wilson Park Dr".

Hi,

This is not the proper way to do this. Instead, this data should go in the destination tags of the motorway link.

In addition, the name tag is not used for this purpose in the United States. You should instead put this sort of things in the destionation=* tag. When tagging this way, the value of the tag should be exactly as it appears on the real exit sign, but with all abbreviations expanded. For example, if the exit sign said "Sunrise Hwy W", you should tag the motorway_link (not the motorway junction!!) with destination="Sunrise Highway West".