Hi,

In this case especially, it's important to also add construction=path as well. Otherwise, it is unknown what type of highway is being constructed, and a lot of software will likely assume it's a highway for vehicle traffic.

Having the track number in railway:track_ref feels appropriate, as you've already done. Thanks for taking the time to work on all of this.

Thanks for the good edit! The names without MT* make for a more pleasant map.

Hi,

Overall this looks like a good changeset, but there were a couple things that caught my eye.

First of all, you should not add names like "NB Hutchinson Rvr Pkwy to WB Cross County Pkwy". The name tag is not a place to describe a feature, but rather it should be an objective, established name for it. Also, you used abbreviations in it, another thing that should not be done in name tags, barring very rare circumstances. Ideally, for features like this, it should have no name at all.

Also, it looks like you changed the value of "New York, Westchester and Boston Railway" from railway=razed to railway=abandoned. Why did you make this change? I don't think you'd be able to tell that there was a railroad there anymore, unless you had prior knowledge going in.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126300367

Hi,

This does not follow the current highway classification guidelines, so I've reverted this in changeset 129803211. I did keep the operator that you added to Phelps, though.

Please review the classification rules at: osm.wiki/TMP-Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification .

The most important thing in the new system is: trunk does not mean limited access, and limited access does not mean trunk. Use expressway=yes to denote limited-access construction instead. Alternatively, if the road has complete control-of-access and is high enough performance, highway=motorway might be suitable.

The idea behind the new classification system is that the network of all roads that are either motorway or trunk should be all of the most natural long-distance transportation arteries. Some roads might run long distances, but not be nearly as desirable for long distance (e.g. the nearby US-9). Roads like this should usually be highway=primary.

In this case, Phelps Way has intersections, which disqualifies it from being a motorway. It also isn't really useful for long-distance travel, as it would dump you into US-9 or other local roads. This disqualifies it from highway=trunk. The next classification down from there would be highway=primary, which I think is suitable for this road. Secondary seems too low, as it is a much more appealing east/west option than the other roads in the area (which are either tertiary or secondary).

I know that highway=trunk has historically been used for limited-access roads in the U.S., but we're trying to move towards a less fragmented and more usable map in terms of classifications. If you'd like to keep working on classifications, I would appreciate your help in moving the map in this direction as well. #local-newyorkstate on the OSMUS Slack is one place where people discuss classifications like this, and having your voice there would be great, if you'd like to join.

Sorry for the long read,
-John

Hi,

I feel that this sort of tagging isn't ideal. The name tag of an object is supposed to be the most natural way to refer to something in normal circumstances. If you were driving on this road (in the express lanes), and someone asked which road you were driving on, "Cross County Parkway" would probably be more natural than "Cross County Parkway Express Lanes".

This sort of information can be described in other tags. The most important one would probably be `destination` at the point that the express section begins. If memory serves me right, that's the only place that the word "express" is even used on the ground, so it might be most suitable to have that be the only place it's tagged as such.

I'll wait a couple days to hear back with your thoughts, but if I don't hear back I'll set it back to just "Cross County Parkway".

Best,
John

While it is true that it has those in some capacity along this length, it's generally not as performant of a road when compared to some others nearby (e.g. I-87 and the Sprain). The lanes are more narrow and the road is just harsher. On top of that, intersections start pretty close from here, so trunk +expressway=yes seemed most fitting.

As a local, I disagree. Have you driven on it?

Hi,

Why did you do this?

Hi,

landuse=residential is commonly used for this sort of thing, so I wouldn't exactly say that it's wrong.

That said, if you do opt for this style of tagging, building=apartments would likely be more appropriate than just building=yes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127593818

There should not be turn restrictions. The appropriate access tags are enough.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127634493

Hi,

Thanks for the edit!

Please just note that "unclassified roads" don't quite match up with these roads here. "Unclassified" basically means a very minor road that is used for through traffic. These roads are minor, but they are only used to access the school, so they should instead be service roads.

Also, these roads should not be named. The name of things on the map should match what street signs say on the ground. If there are no street signs, it shouldn't have a name.

Thanks again!

-John

Hi,

You should never use copyrighted data to map in OSM. You have included a link to Google Maps (which is copyrighted) in the tags for this road. Please do not do this. See osm.org/copyright

Also, to add to that list, you should never create a "no U-turn" restriction unless there is a sign that says so.

To clarify my point about "turning onto a one-way street", I mean turning onto one going in the wrong direction. Even if there is a "do not enter" or "wrong way" sign present, you should not create a restriction.

Also, it looks like you again were adding numerous unsigned turn restrictions at osm.org/node/254218138 . Please do not do this.

Under any of the following conditions, you should not create a turn restriction relation:

- You are trying to express that you can't turn onto a one-way street.
- You are trying to express that you can't enter a street that has access=no or equivalent.
- There is no sign indicating the restriction. (under select circumstances one can still be created, but you should also tag it with implicit=yes)

An example of that last note is to restrict right turns at a main intersection when there is a slip road that drivers are supposed to use. For example: osm.org/relation/13066392

All of these relations are duplicate information, and add clutter to the map. Please stop making them.

Thanks,
-John

Hi,

Please try to break up your changesets so that they're smaller and more targeted. For example, one changeset could be for settings surface tags, while another could be for setting maxspeeds. Or, if you want to do a general purpose changeset like this one, please try to contain it to a smaller area than this, so it's easier to review.

Thanks for the updates!

-John
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126874751

Is it standard for the "operator" key to be used for the name that accompanies the reporting mark? "Metro-North Railroad" is more commonly used to refer to the railroad.

Hi, and thanks for joining OSM!

Overall, this is a good edit. There's lots of stores that need to be added to the map.

There are a couple things I had to fix:
- It looks like you deleted a couple address points. These points are important, as they help people look up where an address is.
- It looks like you set a whole building to be named "Fratelli's Trattoria", though it includes other businesses too (e.g. the Black Cow).
- When entering the name of a place, the rule of thumb is to enter it exactly as the place displays it. As such, I changed the name you added from "10520 Burgers" to "105 Twenty Bar and Grill", as that is how they name themselves.

That aside, thanks for the good work! For every store you map, we get a little closer to being a viable alternative to some bigger map apps, when it comes to finding stores. OSM is relatively weak in comparison for this specific use.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126747806

Please see osm.org/changeset/126631410 for the changeset in which this was reverted.