Hi Russ, I'm wondering about osm.org/way/296376447 which you tagged as a footway. My recollection and gps traces indicate that the GVG (and the FLT/NCT that follow it) goes along River Road for this section, and there's no clear footway between River Road and NY-19A.

This is an old changeset so I know it's a long shot, but I thought I'd check.

Cheer, Jason

Ok, I'm trying to track down the origin of this trail name. I haven't seen it signed or on many maps. It does show up on the DEC Delaware Wild Forest map https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/recmapdwf.pdf but that seems to indicate a different trail ( osm.org/way/286813485 ).

Anyway, no worries if it doesn't ring a bell, I'll figure out what I can. Thanks for the quick reply, cheers, J

Hi, I'm working in this area and wondering if you remember adding the Hog Hollow Trail relation (osm.org/relation/10021278) in this changeset. It was originally just a single member osm.org/way/286813490 but that way was split in changeset 89749282 so the relation now also includes osm.org/way/839342870 . Thanks, J

Hi again msemrni -- this is (I hope!!) the last changeset of yours that I'm reverting. As mentioned in the comments at osm.org/changeset/104205497 you removed 3D mapping details that another user added, which are still correct. I've put those details back on the map.

NYC is quite dense and the buildings here are, in general, pretty well mapped already. I'd suggest you try to get some experience mapping in a simpler environment first. Again, please let me know if you have any questions, happy to help.

J

Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset as well. You've again named a building using a description, and between this changeset and your next one, you're destroying some intricate 3D building mapping that was done by another contributor.

Also, please try to use more descriptive changeset comments. Other map users and editors should be able to look at your changeset comments and understand what changes you're trying to make, and why. Using numbered codes doesn't help this.

Thanks, J

(Oops, accidentally commented on my own changeset instead of 104205497. Copying this comment there.)

Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset as well. You've again named a building using a description, and between this changeset and your next one, you're desctroying some intricate 3D building mapping that was done by another contributor.

Also, please try to use more descriptive changeset comments. Other map users and editors should be able to look at your changeset comments and understand what changes you're trying to make, and why. Using numbered codes doesn't help this.

Thanks, J

Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset because it has multiple problems:

You expanded the footprint of this building onto the sidewalk. Please understand that aerial imagery is not always precisely aligned, and not always taken from directly overhead. Sometimes it's necessary to deduce the true footprint. But in this case, the correct footprint was already mapped. (Most buildings in NYC are.)

You also added a descriptive name to the building. This is a mis-use of the "name" tag.

Please let me know if you have any questions, happy to help, J

Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset because it has multiple problems:

You deleted 3 buildings which I believe still exist, and expanded a neighboring large building over their footprints. You also named the large building "Building at 40 E 14th St" which is not correct (this is more of a description than a name.)

Please let me know if you have any questions, happy to help, J

I was going to write to dlapo_lyft about this exact problem. I'm glad to see you agree. I imagine there are others mistagged out there as well.

For wheelchair and bicycle routing, it's important to exclude the steps from the pedestrian area.

It does end up looking odd, but as far as I know there is no good way to map steps as an area at the moment. There have been some discussions and proposals, see osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Area-steps

Yes indeed.

Certainly not a florist; sorry for the red herring there. I tagged it as shop=confection from survey in January, based on the goods for sale there at the time.

Can you explain how Edible Arrangements is a gift shop? I mean... certainly one wouldn't generally shop for oneself at EA. But that's generally true of florists as well, doesn't make them gift shops.

(those pictures taken at osm.org/#map=19/40.69188/-74.00069 looking NW)

So... although osm.org/way/903220983 is clearly signed as a bike route with a greenway emblem, the cycleway paint on the the asphalt sidewalk (sideride?) has improved so a northbound cyclist *might* consider turning right on osm.org/way/685538890 instead of heading towards the ferry terminal. I still think this is a matter of signage not keeping up with the reroute. Not sure if any retagging is warranted at this time.

See https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmcLS8Np3giwWmgMKZxEifacn6bC9ZKJUCq1UPusd3NdMc and https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmRdoTTokKSGG2bgN2Y28whn8aa4RC6n62AeBok7Geetbe

Some train stations have buildings, and some don't. I've always understood that underground space does not equal a building, but these standards change over time. (The wiki mentions building=cellar + location=underground, for instance.)

If it's demonstrably good for the map to call subway stations underground buildings, I don't have a problem with that. But it would be great to have these methods documented somewhere. If the wiki's too fraught maybe consider a diary entry?

(Sorry to be spamming you with all this pixely ... public transit mapping is "can:contents=worms".)

Unfortunately the wiki's not too much help regarding subway station mapping, at least not at the moment. It simply says "currently there are a number of proposals relating to subterranean stations" but doesn't give any concrete information on tags and best practices. At some point, hopefully, the community will coalesce behind a standard.

The Franklin Av station is tagged as a building because it's above ground. Atlantic really isn't but it still has one old "head house" at osm.org/way/248165091 which is mapped as a building. (It might make sense to map the above-ground portion of the entrance at osm.org/node/1956618005 as a building too.)

As far as I know there really isn't yet an official standard for how to map the areas of a subway stop between the entrances and the platforms. Plenty of people have made attempts, but they don't all seem to agree on how. But the general rule is: if it's not above ground, it's not a building.

You've really jumped into the thick of it by starting off with mapping the subways! They definitely need a lot of work, but the methods for mapping them are still unstandardized and under development. There are always new proposals for how to deal with this stuff, and I'm not always up to speed, but I'm happy to talk about it if you have any other questions.

Good luck, J

Hi pixely, welcome & thanks for your work. I'm not wondering so much about the exact geometry but about tagging this underground subway station as a building. That's something I haven't seen before. Is this an established tagging practice?