Well, `service=spur` remains in wide use and there is no indication on the wiki that it has been deprecated. It strikes me as odd that such a heavily used tag with a generally clear definition would be deprecated all of a sudden.

Could you find the discussion and link it here?

Where was the discussion on this deprecation? As a rail mapper that is news to me.

IMO, the segment of railway in question should certainly be `service=spur` or `usage=industrial` at best. It is not a main track of a branch line.

Reverted in changeset 100662307.

Why did you undo my revert? This is not the agreed-upon way to tag temporally restricted railroads. The Escondido Subdivision is already mapped thoroughly and correctly. The source for this is derived from the California Rail Schematics document [1].

Please do not change any more tags along the Escondido Subdivision without first consulting the talk-us@ mailing list [2], the tagging@ mailing list [3], or the #rail channel in the OSMUS Slack [4].

Best regards,

Clay

[1] PDF download: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/rail-mass-transportation/documents/f0009927-ca-rail-schematics-a11y.pdf

[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[4] https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

I upgraded most streets that pass through stoplights to at least tertiary. In retrospect, that particular street probably shouldn't have been upgraded and I probably wouldn't have done the same today. Goof on my part.

It doesn't matter whether you authorize it or not. That has no bearing on whether other people may add a driveway and buildings to OpenStreetMap.

If you don't want these structures mapped, you are free to demolish them.

No, it's in the correct place.

Reverted in changeset 99695147. Tagging the track segments that support freight trains as railway=light_rail is incorrect because those particular tracks are built to a higher standard and support heavier trains. Light rail trains (route=light_rail) may travel on railway=rail in certain cases such as this one.

Train station names are often, you guessed it, the same as the name of the locality they serve. I couldn't find any info on whether these future stations would have more catchy monikers (like maybe "Rockland Waterfront" or "Wiscasset Gateway") so I went with the safe assumption that they'd be named the most prevalent and obvious way.

And of course these train stations don't exist yet; that's why they're tagged with the `proposed:` prefix. Is there any data consumer that mistakenly treats these as active train stations?

Public transit route names on OSM are sort of a gray area right now. Generally they're given names that follow the format "[vehicle] [ref]: [origin] => [destination]" mostly for the convenience of maintaining them, despite this being a description and not a name.

That said, the ref tag is substantially more important for matching up public transit data between OSM and an external source. Ideally we'll get to a point where The Name Is The Name Only. In some cases this would mean the name tag would actually be blank, since the route may have only a ref and not a name.

Diary entry here: osm.org/user/clay_c/diary/395781

I went ahead and changed the area mapped here to `indoor=area` because it doesn't seem to represent the entire underground station. I encourage pixely to map the indoor areas corresponding to the other entrances, and to connect the indoor areas to both the upper- and lower-level platforms however they're connected IRL.

A diary entry seems like a good idea. This isn't the first time I've run into tagging disputes on underground stations. Perhaps documenting it will alleviate some confusion and provide a place to discuss and come to a consensus. I'll write one up soon.

Here's a more complete example that I've worked on in San Francisco: https://openlevelup.net/#19/37.78432/-122.40773

Once the data loads, try exploring the basement levels by clicking on the negative numbers on the right sidebar. The underground station building outline shows up based on the maximum and minimum levels given in its tags. The station is further subdivided into indoor areas, rooms, and railway platforms.

I've been mapping the excavated underground areas of subway stations as `building=train_station` + `location=underground`. There are a few examples elsewhere in the world of this tagging scheme being used (I'd link an Overpass query here but my home internet is broken right now and I'm on my phone). The default renderer seems to support this tagging scheme elegantly, having them show up underneath the surface-level streets and buildings.

My understanding is that these are train station buildings that happen to be underground, hence this tagging scheme. I'm curious to hear others' opinions and rationale though.

No worries. Thanks for changing it back.

As for trying to tag me in replies (as you mentioned in a private message), no need - I get an email notification for every reply to a changesets conversation I've participated in. I don't think OSM supports tagging users in changeset comments like that.

-Clay

Hi JPinAR,

It looks like you've changed the names of various roads in Bentonville to numbers like 25, 35, 45, etc. Was this intentional? Are those meant to be speed limits?

-Clay

Bonjour MapperNews,

Pourquoi avez-vous supprimé l'attribut `service=siding` de ces voies ? Elles fonctionnent comme évitements (sidings) et elles sont aussi nommé en tant que évitements.

Je vais annuler ce changement, à moins que vous n'ayez une justification.

-Clay

To be fair, the Willis Avenue Bridge is movable, which precludes motorway classification IMO.

How often do the bridges over the Harlem River get raised? Is there a somewhat consistent schedule, or is it more of a once-in-a-blue-moon thing?

Click the "i" icon on the right sidebar for the map legend.

White Road is tagged as a track instead of a minor/residential road. In OSM, we have a distinction between dirt roads that only serve forestry and agriculture purposes (tracks) vs. dirt roads that serve residences and/or connect settlements (minor/residential road with surface specified as dirt). I think White Road should be changed to the latter since it seems to have residences along it.

-Clay

The area also looks wooded, which may be a better match for natural=wood instead of landuse=grass. How come the buildings are deleted?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96929528

Hi CBratina,

your edit is live immediately and this road is now shown to the public as a dirt road. This is helpful for software that uses OSM as a backend - for example, routing software will be less likely to direct drivers down this roadway. However, I don't think the standard renderer shows roads differently based on their surface. Could you link to an example on OSM of a double dashed line you're expecting this to look like?

-Clay