Hi kevmath -- I don't believe the service road connection you made (between osm.org/way/791609044 and osm.org/way/5675018 ) exists anymore. It looks like it's blocked with a wall.

In most of NYC, the NYS Orthos Online aerial imagery is the best aligned and most up to date. The Mapbox Satellite imagery is also pretty recent, though poorly aligned. The Bing aerial imagery and Bing Streetside are generally several years old.

Hi Chuckles, welcome to OpenStreetMap! I'm reviewing this changeset as requested.

First off, I'd suggest in the future try to save your changes more often, so there are fewer updates to the map in a single changeset. This will make it easier for people looking at the changes to understand what's going on.

Also note that if a road is marked access=private, you don't need to explicitly add bicycle=private.

Two questions:
- Your change to the Greenpoint Ave bridge ( osm.org/way/371929850 ) seems odd. There's a cycle lane visible on aerial imagery and the bridge tagged as cycleway=lane -- it can't be both cycleway=lane and bicycle=no. Has bicycle traffic really been restricted on this bridge?
- You deleted a lot of tracks at the end of JFK that are also clearly visible on aerial imagery. Have these tracks been destroyed?

Please let me know, and also feel free to get in touch if you have any other questions. Good luck and happy mapping, J

Hi sabok, thank you for your contributions.

In the future please try to break changesets like this -- which span a large geographic area containing several huge cities -- into separate changesets per local region. This will be easier for humans and quality control software to digest.

Happy mapping, j

Hi jordon -- Thanks for your continued interest in OSM in NYC.

I ask again that you please use the changeset comment box to describe what you're doing on the map, instead of putting in nonsense like "cool", "fun", "qwerty", and "12". OSM is a community project and informative changset comments are vital for letting the community know about the changes you're making. Otherwise it's hard to tell well-intentioned edits from vandalism.

Please contact me with any questions. J

Thanks for getting back to me. The general best practice with OSM is to tag things correctly, not to use incorrect tags to suit the needs of a particular piece of software. But maybe the OSM golf community has decided that's it's appropriate to tag clubhouses as office=yes? If so, it's not documented on the wiki ( osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course ). The suggested tag there is golf=clubhouse.

I don't know much about golf, and I don't know what a spline is. But I have an inkling that the sand traps are probably near the end of the hole, not the start, so I think you've fixed the direction of the holes correctly.

What about the removal of the name "Dyker Beach Golf Course"? Is that intentional?

Hi jordan, welcome to OSM!

In this changeset, you've made some changes to the map that aren't based in reality -- namely, a Restoration Hardware shop the size of a whole city block over top of dozens of residential buildings. This is an error. I've already reverted this in changeset 83592268 so you don't need to try to fix it..

Please be aware that OSM is a *real* map of the *real* world, not a sandbox for experimenting. *PLEASE* do not save changes to the map that are not based in reality.

Also, please use the changeset comment box to describe what you're actually trying to do, so we can better understand when things go wrong.

Thanks, let me know if you have any question, j

You also seem to be tagging every building on the golf course as an office -- are all of these buildings really offices?

Hi preistizzle, welcome to OSM!

I noticed you removed the name from this golf course -- was that intentional? Based on https://www.dykerbeachgc.com it appears that "Dyker Beach Golf Course" is in fact the official name of the course.

Hi re812, thanks for your contributions here in Brooklyn. I have a couple of questions aout this changeset:
- You removed a residential building and replaced it with a park. Last I saw, that building is still there. Has it recently been demolished and replaced with a park?
- You added a courtyard between buildings and also tagged it as park. Probably it's one or the other?
- You assigned the address 277 Washington to both these parks. 277 Washington is a real address nearby, but does not apply to these things.

Let me know if you have any questions, happy to help.

J

Hi e pt -- can you describe your changes to the Kosciuszko Bridge? And in the future can you use a more descriptive changeset comment?

Thanks, jmapb

Hi 718carlease -- I'm pretty sure this is a residential building without any kind of shop. Maybe you have the location wrong?

If this is a "virtual" business -- that is, if there's no actual shop for customers to visit -- then it's not suitable for inclusion on OpenStreetMap.

Thanks, J

Hi RhonenNY, welcome to OpenStreetMap!
It seems that you were attempting to delete the name "Lincoln Building" from this building:
osm.org/way/247862290
...but actually you deleted the entire building instead.
I've restored the deleted building and moved the previous name and wikipedia link to the correct building:
osm.org/way/248773789

Please be careful and double-check before saving, because the changes you make to the map publish immediately and many people rely on an accurate NYC map. Let me know if you have any questions, happy to help.

jmapb

Hi Andreea, I've just reverted this changeset with changeset 81981330 because it seems you accidentally moved a section of 64th St down to 68th street.

J

Thanks, and if you don't mind, I'd like to move some of the items back to thier original location. It's not hard to do as long as nobody else has moved them around in the mean time.

Regarding the aerial imagery, it looks like my info's out of date. Earlier this year I checked the Bing imagery and it was several years old, but it's recently been updated and seems to be from last summer. So Bing is now the most current in NYC. The alignment's not great but I've realigned it using an offset of 0.86,-1.38 and that seems to work pretty well, at least in Brooklyn. Unknown at this point if it drifts around in other parts of the city.

(The NYS Orthos is still valuable because the alignment's close to perfect -- close enough that I don't bother trying to tweak it -- and because it was shot in the winter so has much less tree cover. The Mapbox imagery's still useful too, especially for seeing details on taller buildings.)

Hi RangerMankin, welcome to OSM! I'm Brooklyn-based myself and it's always great to see a new mapper in the hood.

In this changeset you've made slight adjustments to a lot of building footprints. My advice is to do this with caution. The footprints were all imported from the NYC dept of buildings database and though they're not perfect, they are in general pretty good. If you see a lot of imported buildings that are slightly offset from the aerial imagery in the same direction, it's much more likely that the imagery you're using is misaligned, rather than that the city mismeasured all of those buildings.

The best-aligned aerial imagery in the NYC area is the "NYS Orthos Online" which is published by New York State. If you switch to this layer you'll probably see that most of the building footprints match the aerial photos pretty well. (Note that the footprints sometimes don't include overhangs and awnings.)

The ESRI World Imagery layer is also useful -- it's actually the same imagery as the NYS Orthos with better resolution. But the alignment is a little off, and even varies a bit between zoom levels.

The most up-to-date imagery currently is the MapBox Satellite, but it's misaligned pretty severely. It's also taken at an angle so the tops of buildings are displaced from the footprints, especially taller ones.

Let me know if you have any questions about the map, happy to help.

Jason

Here's another one where you've added a service road right through the front door of a building.

Your productivity is impressive but perhaps consider doing these a little more slowly and carefully.

Thanks, J

Thanks for the quick reply TravGW -- I'm happy to hear you did check these manually. But I'd appreciate if you attempted to contact the users in question first, at least those who seem legit. I know that sorting out who's a real mapper with a penchant for adspeak and who's just an SEO bot is hard work. I know because I've done a lot description tag cleanup myself. But it hurts the community to undo the work of real mappers without any communication.

At first glance I think the vast majority of the changes are for the better. But there are definitely some descriptions you've removed that were written in good faith. Some of these might benefit from a less spammy rewording. Maybe some of them really should be deleted, good faith notwithstanding! But if they were added by real people, an attempt at communicating with those people is better than a mass tag deletion.

Thanks, J

This was an attempt to revert a poorly-researched mass edit changeset (81752271) which overzealously attempted to remove spammy description tags.

In fact it appears I only reverted 28 of the 1045 nodes affected by changeset 81752271. And it's highly likely that most/all of these WERE spam descriptions. (Much easier to spot-check 28 descriptions than 1045.)

I'm leaving these alone for now to avoid further muddling, but if anyone feels like reverting THIS changeset be my guest... because in actuality I just added a lot of spam to the map.

J

Hi TravGW -- please don't perform these continent-sized mass edits. They are very difficult for both humans and software to process.

I consider your motive, reducing description tag spam, to be a good one, but this is not a good way to go about it.
Some mappers I'm familiar with from my area (NYC) like to use wordy descriptions. That doesn't equal advertisement.

I don't know what criteria you used to select these description tags for deletion, but I suspect it's just based on field length without any attempt to examine or communicate with the users in question.

I attempted to revert this changeset with changeset 81755045 but failed -- possibly there are too many changes for the JOSM reverter plugin to handle. All the more reason to use smaller changesets, both geographically and in number of edits.

Thanks, Jason

Hi Robert -- you've been adding a lot of service roads in NYC and, and thanks for that, it's a lot of good work. But I'm also seeing a lot of changesets like this where you're distorting the roads you're connecting to.

I've been trying to fix these when I notice them but lately it's looking like I can't keep up.

See https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=81716983 and zoom into Crawford Ave for a example of what I've been seeing and fixing.

Thanks, Jason