Hi,

Welcome to OSM! There's a couple things I'd like to point out here.

First of all, it looks like you didn't remove the node after mapping out the pool as an area. Please do so when doing tasks like this.

Second, please don't put things like "pool" in the name tag. It looks like your editor warned you about this too, and you must have clicked to ignore the warning. Please give careful consideration to any warnings shown to you, as it will help reduce issues with the data you produce.

Specifically, "pool" would be an example of a descriptive name. Essentially, you're describing the element with your own words. This is not really useful to anyone; the fact that it's a pool is already represented in the other tags. If you want to know whether something in OSM should have a name, consider how you'd mention it to someone in conversation. Would you say "that bridge by the park"? If so, don't put a name on it. Or, would you say "the George Washington Bridge"? In this case, you would put a name on it.

Hopefully my examples help you understand the rules for this, but please let me know if you still have questions about this or anything else in OSM.

Hi,

I appreciate your effort in this changeset, but I had a few questions about it, since I'm not a Rochester native.

First of all, I know that the Inner Loop is signed as such and referred to as that name by locals. However, why did you add ref=IL? Are you just adding an initialism? Is this signed anywhere or generally recognized by locals? If not, we're trying to eliminate this usage of ref around the state and beyond. Please tell me what your motivation was for adding this tag, though.

Also, it looks like you added `name=Outer Loop` to, well, the outer loop. It doesn't look like you added `ref=OL`, presumably since the members of the outer loop already have refs. The few times I've been through the area, I don't recall seeing signage saying outer loop as much as the inner loop. Is it the obvious name to the average local?

And again, I'd like to invite you to the OSMUS Slack. With all of the contributions you've been making in New York, I think we'd all benefit from having you in the conversation. If you join, please join the #local-newyorkstate channel and say hi. You can join at: https://slack.openstreetmap.us

I hope to see you there!

Hi,

First of all, I downgraded part of it a while ago, since trunks no longer mean expressways.

Also, please do not put things like "NY 263 S / Buffalo" in the name tag; filling out destination and destination:ref like you did is all you need to do.

Hi,

Please review the values for the surface tag. It looks like you used surface=concrete for places with just lighter colored asphalt.

Please don't put multiple names (separated by a semicolon) in the name tag.

Looks like you somehow removed the part of the Hutchinson River Parkway that you were working on from the route relation. I'll go ahead and fix it

Hi,

I noticed that you mapped a connection between the two directions of CR-97 (Nicolls Road). Please don't tag these as highway=trunk_link; this tag implies that anyone can drive across it. Instead, please use at least highway=service along with access=no for these types of things.

Hi,

Thanks again for using NYSDOP imagery in these areas. Your work looks very good.

Your imagery_used tag on the changeset is set correctly, which is good. Your changeset comment is still on Bing though.

Thanks for your work!

Hi,

For names like this, it is preferred to put them in the official_name tag, rather than the name tag. Please move the name to this tag, if you could.

Is this path signed as "Side Path", or did you choose this name to describe it? If it's the latter, please don't do that. If it is actually signed as "Side Path", then the name tag can remain as such.

Hi,

Did you mean to tag Connoisrauley Road North (osm.org/way/20041598) with bridge=yes and layer=1? These tags seem questionable when looking at satellite imagery and considering surface=unpaved.

Oh, also, to show a concurrency with ref, please separate the elements with a semicolon and no space, rather than a comma with space.

Hi,

I intentionally removed this, after discussion with members in the OSMUS Slack.

Mappers have erroneously used the ref tag for common abbreviations of named roads, which I am trying to correct in some places.

The main argument in favor of using ref for this is if the shield for the route emphasizes the initials. This can be somewhat observed in the parkway shields in Westchester, and very prominently on the NYC and LI parkway shields. However, on the shields used for Palisades Parkway, Seven Lakes Drive, Lake Welch Parkway, and more, there is no emphasis on the initials at all. Thus, removing the initials from ref on this road was pretty uncontroversial.

I do invite you to join the OSMUS Slack so you could join the discussion, since I'd like to build consensus on this topic with mappers in the area. I believe I sent you an invitation as a message before, but I can send another invite if you'd like.

Thanks,
John

Please don't do that. The name tag should not be used to describe what the object is; that should be done with other tags. For example, expressing that the ramp leads to PA 309 North would be done by using the tag `destination:ref=PA 309 North`.

A good test to determine if an object should have a name or not is whether you describe it in terms of other things. In this case "Ramp to PA 309 North" is describing it relative to PA 309, so the ramp shouldn't have a name. Or if you'd describe a bridge as "that bridge between [place A] and [place B]", it probably shouldn't have a name either.

Hi,

It looks like you added a name ("ramp to I-287 South/Route 17 South") to a ramp. Please don't add names to ramps; the data about where it leads should be expressed in the destination tag, or destination:ref tag.

Also note that due to the extended length that this bridge will be closed, it might make sense to shift the trunk designation to US-9W.

Hi,

Please don't do that. This should be in short_name.

Looks like part of the river (osm.org/node/7805262616) was glued to a bridge that carries I-86 here, resulting in a misshapen bridge when you fixed the river's geometry. I'll unglue the bridge from it.

Hi,

It looks like you meant to just trace one building, but you (presumably accidentally) also mangled some road geometry around the intersection of Maple Street (NY-129), Wells Avenue, and Van Cortlandt Place. From the changeset tags, it looks like your editor tried to warn you about this. Please make sure to pay attention to these warnings, and make sure you haven't done something wrong accidentally. For now, I'll go ahead and revert all of the changeset except for the building that you added.

Additionally, I noticed that you added address information to the house that you traced, presumably from the node that was located on it. I would encourage this, as long as it's a simple case like this one, but just make sure to delete the node afterwards. Otherwise there would be two objects with the same address, unnecessarily.

With all that said, thanks for contributing to OSM! If you have any questions, feel free to message me.

You changed Broadway into a foot path. Please, be more careful in the future.