Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "medical center" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218996

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "forest glen" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218968

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "grosvenor" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218934

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "station groups" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218877

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "glenmont" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218837

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "twinbrook" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218795

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "rosslyn" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218710

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "buses" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218671

Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "dc area" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

osm.org/changeset/103218509

Reverted. Please do not merge stop_area relations that are already contained within a stop_area_group relation.

osm.org/changeset/103218306

Reverted. Please do not merge stop_area relations that are already contained within a stop_area_group relation.

osm.org/changeset/103218270

Reverted. Please do not merge stop_area relations that are already contained within a stop_area_group relation.

osm.org/changeset/103218120

Hi goldenking05,

What is your source for the translations of these street names? It seems unlikely that these streets in small-town Indiana would have signage posted in Arabic and Chinese.

Did you do these translations yourself?

No big deal. Each state has its own conventions for how it signs roads. ODOT is pretty consistent in signing them as "State Road" and mappers in Ohio have come to the consensus that refs should match signage. Likewise in Indiana.

I have already reverted the fictional railway features. See osm.org/changeset/102436763

Track numbers are not names. I don't think they belong in the name tag. That said, it's a pretty small issue and I don't care if you re-add them.

If you're looking for a renderer that surfaces track numbers, check out OpenRailwayMap.

So here's what it looks like happened. I had been using JOSM to review MBTA rail and I must have thought I had finished, so I moved on to reviewing Pittsburgh's light rail. Turns out I had some unsaved changes in Boston and accidentally rolled those into the same changeset.

The changes in Boston seem to be only tweaking layer=* and level=* tags. The changes in Pennsylvania are aerial review of the T line between Library and Washington Junction, for example, changing service tags, or moving switches to more accurate locations.

At any rate, I no longer have the same workflow and now avoid having two different areas loaded into one JOSM layer, so this kind of mistake won't happen again.

Well that's weird. Thanks for calling this to my attention; I'm taking a look

Hi Darrell,

This isn't quite how light rail tagging is done. A node should not have both `public_transport=stop_position` and `railway=station`. What needs to be done here is the existing `railway=tram_stop` nodes should be retagged with `railway=stop`, and a new node with `railway=station` (and the other implied tags) should be placed at the visual center of the station.

Do you want to take care of this or should I go ahead and do it?

-Clay

changeset comment should actually say Seattle Streetcar