Hmm... Shop looked open to me. It might be operating as a sub-shop of Face Values.

fat-fingered typo for "old_name", good catch, fixed now

The 30mph sign is real, but only in the southbound direction between Prospect and Park. Southbound from Park there's a 25mph sign and northbound there's also a 25mph sign. And the rest of Flatbush between GAP and Barclays is unsigned.

Seems odd, but that's how I've tagged it.

Hello fellow mapper!

I assume you're talking about the practice of drawing an entire intersection's crosswalks as a single way, like you might see in osm.org/way/707021297 version 3 (https://i.imgur.com/MfGECMt.jpg).

This is a very common way of mapping crosswalks worldwide, and it's the way I've generally done them when possible. It has the advantages of 1) being very fast to do well in JOSM without distorting the roads, and 2) using only a single way, which keeps the database a little trimmer.

My general ethic is to use the simplest mapping techniques possible to produce a correctly routable map. But there's always a balance between mapping simply and mapping precisely, and the standards shift over time with new mapping and routing technology, clearer imagery, and evolving use cases.

I understand that there's a lot of interest in micro-mapping sidewalks and crosswalks in order to tag information like surface, width, smoothness, sloped curbs, and tactile pavement which are of vital interest for blind pedestrians, wheelchair users, etc. The most comprehensive plan for encoding this information is the "Open Sidewalks Schema" (https://github.com/OpenSidewalks/OpenSidewalks-Schema). This has never been formally proposed and adopted into the OSM tagging standards, but that's not always how OSM works! Plenty of people are already mapping using these methods, or subsets and variations. Mappers will add them if they seem useful, and hopefully they will be.

Sorry if you find it annoying to split single-way crosswalks into multiple parts in order to add this detailed info into OSM. I can't promise I'll mend my ways (pun intended) but the good news is you won't find very many of these that I mapped, because I've generally only mapped sidewalks and crosswalks when they're necessary for correct pedestrian routing. (A good example: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=40.65318%2C-73.96760%3B40.65071%2C-73.96845#map=17/40.65195/-73.96773&layers=N would give an incorrect route without the sidewalks and crosswalks.) In other cases I've mapped sidewalks as tags on the road themselves, which works well for 90% or so of NYC's street grid -- until you want to start adding detailed info to assist with accessible routing.

Some mappers like to add separate sidewalk ways to prepare for full accessibility routing, and some just on general principle. Obviously there's nothing wrong with this if it's done well! (The biggest danger in mapping sidewalks is that it can break pedestrian routing if done incorrectly, eg, leaving a dangling sidewalk end.)

I could talk about this stuff all day, so feel free to discuss this further if you'd like. I'm very happy to see more active mappers in NYC and look forward to the day when we can meet up in person.

J

Never seen vzv.nyc, I love that I'm always learning about another tool.

I was on Osmose for some reason and it alerted to an unmapped speed limit spotted on mapillary imagery. The link is https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=0frD34Fd0wnoI9qpEtMNjM&signs=true&points=true&lat=40.67887305860807&lng=-73.9737479024309&z=17&x=0.36977766359498543&y=0.5453082129810397&zoom=1.2827864259811022 but this is almost a year old so I'll check it out in person next time I'm by.

Sounds good, I'll give it another peek when the snow melts

I believe you're right about Maxar being the newest around here -- it's the only one that shows the Quay Tower complete (which I still need to add.)

I guess you can go ahead and put the greenway back but the way I had it, but I'm still unsure about the path west from node 2342949845 -- I can't find a picture but I recall it looking very much like a bike path, with its own cycle markings. But now it seems it would be a dead end. Maybe you can still bike to the ferry terminal?

I'm a little puzzled here...

I surveyed in January and the southbound signage here (osm.org/node/3351031683) sent bicycles along the sidewalk (paved with blacktop with painted bike markings) and pedestrians along the edge of the pier (see https://i.imgur.com/Qe9YeZj.jpg). The westbound signage here (osm.org/node/3351053358) said please walk bikes. And westbound from here (osm.org/node/2342949845) the path still had bike markings on the pavement, as if the greenway continued toward the pier, with no indication that the northbound sidewalk is anything but a sidewalk.

The only way I could make sense of this is if the greenway had been offically relocated onto the sidewalk but bikes were still allowed on the path along the pier edge. But now it doesn't add up at all.

Maybe it was a temporary detour? But the signage in the picture doesn't look temporary.

A simple solution, if a little unsatisfying: Red Hook Lane is open again.

Good question. I'll be in the area next week and check it out, if you don't find the answer sooner. J

No arguments here, just looking to standardize. I think the city bike map (not the Citibike map!) is a good enough authority unless it's explicitly contradicted by conditions on the ground.

I updated the tagging on the =yes sections of Center Drive and Wellhouse Drive to =designated to match.

(I didn't know the Citibike map was using OSM. Neato.)

Howdy TBI, what criteria do you use for bicycle=designated? I left this as =yes because I didn't see any bike-specific signage or lane markings.

Hi utkap, do you know why you marked this road oneway? I don't see any oneway markings in any of the imagery you've mentioned.

Fixed, good catch!

see comments in changeset 96987406

see comments in changeset 96987406

see comments in changeset 96987406

see comments in changeset 96987406

Hello EZRouting, I've reverted this changeset. I've also reverted, fully or partially, your other recent changesets in Ulster county: 96988257, 96990057, 96992155, and 96992894.

The biggest problem here is the reclassification of service and track roads to residential, which you have not explained. There are also roads you seem to have added by guessing.

There are also some instances where you've mapped correctly, fixing errors and correcting names. It's tricky but I've done my best to remove your mistakes without damaging the good data. This takes a lot of work.

In the future please don't make any changes to the map if you aren't willing to discuss why you've made them. OSM is a group project and cooperative mapping is what makes it work.

Thank you, Jmapb

Hi there EZRouting... you seem to be changing a lot of service roads to residential in this changeset. May I ask why?