Hi,

It looks like you also made a mistake on this way: osm.org/way/956455770

Did you mean 45 mph, instead of 445 mph?

Hi there,

It looks like you made a mistake with the speed limit on this way: osm.org/way/826790148

Did you mean 35 mph instead of 435 mph?

Hi there,

It looks like you made a mistake with the speed limit on this way: osm.org/way/9276911

Did you mean 30 mph, instead of 302 mph?

I didn't think the Bear Mountain section was as important, so I left it as tertiary. If you disagree with any part of this changeset, please leave a comment here.

Apologies for the large changeset here. There are likely a few unclassified roads here that may be better off as residential, but I feel that most of the changes are accurate. Note that unclassified does not mean "the classification is unclear"; it's just the next level below tertiary. Feel free to comment if you think I got something wrong.

I forgot to include it in the source field, but I also used Bing Streetside here in a few places.

Sorry about the bbox on this one; I got a bit carried away. I may have been slightly heavy handed with tertiary here, but I wasn't just marking any road with a yellow line as such either. If local opinion disagrees with any of these changes, please let me know and I'll happily readjust the classification.

Hi,

I know this is late, but you may be interested in the "Gridify" plugin in JOSM. It makes mapping parking spaces much, much easier.

Hi there,

I've moved "Saw Mill River Parkway Lands" to the note tag, since this isn't really a common name for these woods. Since there isn't really a commonly used name for them, I've gone ahead and added noname=yes as well.

Best,
John

Ah, I see now that I looked at OSMCha. Sorry to bother you.

Hi there,

It looks like you named several woods "Saw Mill River Parkway Lands". Is this name sourced from anywhere, or did you create it yourself? If it's the latter, I believe it would be better to provide no name value at all, following the "on the ground" rule.

Hi,

As a local, I disagree with this change. The path gets about 50/50 foot/bicycle traffic, so I feel that the old tagging is more appropriate. highway=cycleway, in my opinion, is better suited for cases where the path is primarily used by bicycles. bicycle=designated already results in Carto rendering it in blue, even if it's a highway=path.

I see now that you also added the name "Long Beach Station Entrance" to the main entrance, which is definitely not signed there. As such, I've assumed that the other name values are not signed either, so I'm removing them. Please let me know if this is not the case, and I would be happy to revert that.

Additionally, consider using the (admittedly less used) railway=train_station_entrance tag instead of railway=subway_entrance for full railway systems (i.e. not subways/metros/etc.).

Hello,

Thanks for contributing this, it looks like a good changeset overall. I have one question though: is the name "Long Beach Parking Entrance" something that you actually saw written on a sign, or did you come up with the name by describing what the entrance is? In the latter case, it is better to add no name value at all, and just let the data speak for itself. In any case though, thanks for contributing.

Best,
John

After taking a closer look, this road was already accurate before this changeset, since it was tagged with change:forward=no or change:lanes:forward=yes|not_right|no. As such, I've had to revert this changeset. I retained your classification change (motorway_link -> motorway) since that looks reasonable.

Hi,

Generally speaking, paint alone doesn't warrant the use of a second way. Usually a physical barrier is required for this. If there's only paint but there is a turn restriction, this should most likely be mapped as a single way with a turn restriction relation.

Hi,

It looks like you deleted three good tags from this relation. Can you elaborate about why you did this?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153226512

If you disagree with this, please comment here before resorting to reverting. Though I have driven the road before, I am not a local, so I am happy to listen to local input here.

Hi,

Looks like you added water=stream to the southernmost bit of the Croton River. waterway=stream is defined as "a naturally-formed waterway which is narrow enough that an active, able-bodied adult can jump across it", which is definitely not the case for the Croton River. Thus, I'll change the tag to the more appropriate water=river.

Hi,

Thanks for contributing. Unfortunately I've had to revert this classification change, as NY-201 doesn't quite meet the standard for "motorway" under the current NYS classification guidelines. You can read more about them here: osm.wiki/TMP-Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification

In short, motorway is used for not only the highest performance roads, but for roads that are both controlled-access and the highest level of importance. Route 17 is a good example here; NY-201 might be controlled-access, but it's definitely not as important as Route 17. To tag a road that is limited or controlled access, but isn't important enough to be a motorway, you can use highway=primary+expressway=yes.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
John