The problem I noticed was that you combined two trail segments, osm.org/way/284692868 and osm.org/way/415181293 . These are both part of the same trail, but 415181293 is part of the Long Path relation ( osm.org/relation/6198495 ). So when they're combined, the trail down to Woodland Valley Campground becomes part of the Long Path too, which it isn't (though it used to be years ago.)

In general, when you see a trail or road split for no reason -- there might be a reason!

The other things I noticed were
- You connect the track osm.org/way/284744782 to Woodland Valley Road. I don't see a connection there, in fact I don't see this track at all. I'm not sure it really exists, which is why I have it tagged with a fixme. Someone needs to scout for it on the west end where it connects to the Phoenicia East Branch Trail, and if it's there see how far it goes. (Or get permission from the private landowners on the east end.)
- Somehow the parking lot at osm.org/way/816358666 became a multipolygon, which isn't necessary

Anyway, this is all fixed now. Let me know if you have any questions, J.

Hi sdelmont, I've reverted this changeset with changeset 105037140 due to some errors. Let me know if you want any details.

Cheers, Jason

Looks like you did something similar to the Smiley Carriageway in osm.org/changeset/100512344 -- combined two segments into one, thereby adding extra bit of the carriageway into the Long Path relation.

If you see a road or path divided, don't necessarily assume that the two segments should be joined. Very often it's been split for a reason -- in these cases, because a portion of the road is part of a route relation (the Long Path.)

Don't worry, I'll fix these. Let me know if you have any questions, happy to help.

J

Hi there... I'm trying to figure out what happened to the Long Path relation ( osm.org/relation/6198495 ) here in Sam's Point. It looks like you combined various parts of Loop Road into a single way. Can you explain what's going on here?

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