Hi Anastasia,

After discussion with other local mappers, it became clear that roads like these should be tagged according to the visible signage, regardless of the legal designation. I made a changeset here [1] to retag network=US:TX:FM:Spur to network=US:TX:Spur statewide, while adding a note about their legal designations. Sorry for the confusion.

[1] osm.org/changeset/117547164

(sorry, that should have been sent from this account, not my work account)

Good catch. Fixed here: osm.org/changeset/117416657

Reverted here: osm.org/changeset/117375012

Hi champagnejohnny,

I've had to revert this changeset because it changed public roadways with residences to golf cart paths. Please be aware that not all paved roads surrounded by golf holes are golf cart paths.

Reverted here: osm.org/changeset/117375012

Hi champagnejohnny,

Unfortunately I've had to revert this changeset. It mistakenly changed many roads with residences to golf cart paths, and introduced many poorly-mapped single-family homes mistakenly tagged as office buildings.

Please avoid changing public roads to golf cart paths, even if golf carts travel on them between holes.

Reverted here: osm.org/changeset/117374913

aren't running in revenue service yet?

(sorry, hit the button by accident)

Railroads are not publicly accessible rights-of-way. All railroads would be access=private, because you cannot simply own a railed vehicle and plop it on the tracks wherever. The access tag isn't appropriate for railroads.

What is the purpose of assigning a tag to the railroad indicating that trains

While it's debatable whether this segment of rail should be mapped as under construction or not, I'm not sure railway=rail was the right choice here. Personally, I would map it as railway=light_rail (not railway=construction) if construction is complete and it's undergoing testing. To indicate that passenger service isn't running on this segment (yet), I would simply leave it out of any route=light_rail relations.

I've suggested the addition of a new lifecycle prefix for situations like this, but I'm not sure it's really necessary. I think it's sufficient to map it as completely built but leave it out of public transit relations.

Wouldn't the segment of US 190 between I-10 and LA 22 be motorway still? It's fully access-controlled, with 3 grade-separated interchanges, and even has a direct interchange with an Interstate.

Took care of it here: osm.org/changeset/117292540

I used JOSM to separate the nodes from the track segments and moved them over.

The new platform at Middletown looks very thin. Do you know if the tracks have been shifted over a few feet to accommodate the new platform?

osm.org/changeset/117251329

Hi,

I've reverted this changeset because the Texas Highway Designation Files list this as a Farm-to-Market Spur, not a State Highway Spur [1]. Signs for both of these networks look identical, which I'm sure is confusing.

[1] https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fm/fm0149.htm

My complaint here is about your behavior, not your tagging. Disputes and discussion are healthy; edit warring is not.

It seems like you have some strong opinions on this issue, and I welcome you to voice them in a constructive manner. Again, I would recommend joining the OpenStreetMap-US Slack and mentioning this issue in #local-texas, because Texas mappers are in that channel actively discussing how to tag roads like these going forward.

Hi Russell722,

This is the second time you've reverted my work without notifying me. Please write a comment on any changesets you revert to notify the people involved. Otherwise, what you're doing may be seen as an edit war.

While it is true that using the word "Business" in ref tags causes it to not show up on osm-carto (the map you're looking at), it doesn't mean you should retag it to make it render [1].

There is currently ongoing discussion about highway classification and ref values in the OpenStreetMap-US Slack [2]. I invite you to join the #local-texas channel and share your thoughts on tagging Texas highways.

[1] osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

[2] https://osmus-slack.herokuapp.com/

No worries, I'll fix it.

Hi there - how come you removed TX 17 from the ref value of I-10 east of Balmorhea? I-10 and SH 17 overlap between exit 209 and 212. Is SH 17 unsigned along this segment?

Hi they,

What was your rationale behind tagging the whole segment of TX 136 between Borger and Fritch as expressway=yes? While it does have a high speed limit, in my opinion only the divided segments should be considered expressways. The undivided parts seem like stroads to me.

-Clay

oops, meant west

oops, rolled another change into this one. also added expressway=yes to US 77 between Three Rivers and Edinburg