I see. Changeset reverted. Thanks for catching that. What I did was prompted by the fact that for whatever reason the school was not being rendered as such for me in OsmAnd, and when I looked at it in Vespucci the way it was displayed made it look like just a node instead of a way. Why it missed so many tags when I copied and pasted them, I have no idea. Anyway, I believe it should be fixed now.

Oh, interesting. Thanks for clarifying.

I walk past here quite often and have never noticed a spring. Last time I passed by I looked around and couldn't find one. Can anyone clarify the source for this edit?

Oh, sorry about that. Should have checked the history but was working from Vespucci, which doesn't conspicuously show unit letters / numbers, and the way they were so tightly clustered in one area of the building led me to assume they were probably duplicates created by a bot or something.

Thanks for catching it, and feel free to restore them. I might spread them around the perimeter of the building to make it more obvious they're individual store fronts in a strip mall, but whatever...

I removed the "Bad Road" node name tag from this changeset. For what it's worth the road condition here was not particularly bad the last time I drove down it, but of course that could have changed. If you feel the road needs to be tagged as having a bad surface, the approved way to do that is with a "smoothness" tag on the segment of the road that has the rough surface. See this page on the wiki for details:

osm.wiki/Key:smoothness

Thanks for contributing!

Again, I completely understand your concern for cyclists' safety. I hope I have not come off as dismissive in that regard.

There is indeed a way to map concrete walls along the side of the road (though I think it is generally assumed, at least in the US, that bridges have some such side barrier):

osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dwall

We're not exactly back where we started; I did tag one section as having no shoulder at all. Other sections could perhaps be refined by adding "shoulder:est_width=*" (or just "shoulder:width=*" if you happen to know the exact width) to indicate other areas where the shoulder narrows considerably.

Thanks for the prompt reply, and archpdx for your input as well. I understand and appreciate the motivation behind tagging the road in this way, but there is a strong consensus that, per the wiki, access tags should "describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth e.g. signage or legal ruling". The wiki further states ( osm.wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values ) that the "discouraged" value should be used "only if marked by a traffic sign" because it is "subjective otherwise". This applies to other modes, as well, not just bikes.

It might be useful to have some OSM-based map that provides recommendations for which roads to use or not when cycling, but OSM itself is meant to include only data that is objectively verifiable. Many cyclists would probably be uncomfortable riding on a road like this. Personally, I have often ridden on roads that look much scarier than this one and am relatively comfortable doing so for short distances. It's a subjective judgement call, and if we were to consistently use the "discouraged" access value on all roads where most people would feel unsafe riding a bike, it would have to be applied to the vast majority of highways across very wide swaths of North America.

Note that it is possible and can be quite useful for vulnerable road users to add more objective data that can help people make their own decisions about whether to use a certain right of way. For example, check out the "shoulder" tag (osm.wiki/Key:shoulder), which allows you to specify whether there is a shoulder that cyclists and pedestrians can use, its smoothness, material, width, etc. OR 219 is already tagged as being a trunk highway (suggesting relatively heavy and fast traffic) and as lacking a sidewalk. The "maxspeed" and "lanes" tags can also be useful if you know that information.

Hello.

I ran across this changeset while trying to diagnose some bicycle routing problems I was having along OR 219 crossing the Willamette. It seems you added tags to this section of 219 indicating that bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited. I cannot find any statute stating that this is the case. ODOT's official list of highways where bicycles are prohibited does not mention any part of 219. https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/find-bike-paths.aspx appears to indicate that this is a legitimate bike route. I even looked at Mapillary street-level imagery from this stretch and did not see any signage indicating bikes / pedestrians are not allowed. Can you confirm if bikes and pedestrians are actually prohibited here by statute?

Thank you.

I believe this issue has now been resolved by changeset 100393750. Thanks again for the feedback!

Thanks for the feedback and the iD "Merge" tip; I didn't know it would make multipolygon relations for you like that. I understand what you're saying, and looking at OSMI I can see these are flagged as errors. I can't find anything in the wiki that actually says shared segments of outer *closed* ways make a multipolygon invalid; maybe I'll try and add such an example to the wiki if that's the case. And the geometry is actually rendering just fine in OsmAnd, though it looks more like a mixed bag in Mapnik. I mapped them this way largely because I wanted to indicate some parts are enclosed buildings, while others appear to be just roofs over covered walkways. But I guess building:part=roof is the standard way of doing that. So I'll try and get around to remapping those churches that way in the next few days. Thanks again for your help!