*modified bridge

To recap that discussion:

1. OSM convention is to tag roadways with in-road, unprotected bike lanes, not to draw a separate way. This is the case for the BU Bridge, and roadway tags are already made.

2. In-road bike lanes that are protected by flexposts or parked cars can be drawn separately, since this is a common convention in North American cities.

Hope this helps with further mapping!

Thank you, very helpful!

Could you share a source for these new classification guidelines? I'm not familiar with them and want to be tagging roads correctly.

Please see osm.org/note/4451508 for additional discussion of change

No, I removed several but clearly missed a few. Will clean up, thanks.

Hi cubbe8, Thanks for all your contributions to Cambridge recently.

As a heads up, the OSM conventions for bike lanes are not the ones you're using here. Only a "cycle track" that is physically separated from the roadway should get its own path (like the one on Ames). This bike route on Broadway is a "cycle lane" within the roadbed, so it should be defined with a cycle tag on the roadway (i.e. Broadway). As you'll see if you query the feature, this is already marked.

Full documentation is here: osm.wiki/Bicycle

I was also initially confused by this because non-separated cycle lanes are not rendered in the OSM default. But you'll find the known cycling routes clearly defined here: https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=17/42.36350/-71.08766/cyclosm. Note that the Broadway lanes are duplicated.

Most bike routing applications use these conventions, so please check them out!

And just so you know, I follow your tagging approach closely in MA. Classify land cover inside nature_reserves, remove land cover on state forests, merge boundaries on common ownership and name,correct boundaries to L3 parcel layer boundaries. Just haven't had time to work on this specific property.

Hi TomPar, this edit was to restore the natural=wpod tag that was previously on this shape. I was merging parcels on the adjacent Norcross nature_reserve. I deleted for wood tag for the reasons you mentioned, but then I ran out of time to fully fix Brimfield, so I restored to maintain to status quo ante. the cutouts predate my edit. Feel free to amend further, sorry that I didn't document better

Thanks for contributing to OSM. I made a revert on this edit because it converted a large land area (Flaine) into a restaurant building. I've separately restored the le Bauhaus restaurant node as you recommend. Please have a look at the "Learn OSM" wiki as you make contributions to the map!

osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide

Just wanted to say thanks for these edits! They render better than what I had previously done. Hadn't considered making courts as relations and glad you did.

Bad tag. Updated MIT building names to common convention (ref + name), minor campus fixes, demo'd garage in Kendall Sq.

Nope! Thanks for catching that.

noted!

FYI, the City does maintain a demolitiosn dataset, so it would be easy to validate and remove old buildings. I'd guess something like 3-5% of the mapped residential stock from ~2014 is now gone.

Thanks for catching that. I use mapbox for building footprints bc it's higher spatial res and free of tree canopy. but I do sometimes miss recent demolitions.

Thanks for all your StreetComplete contributions... Detroit CBD is looking great!

Hi GNR8, Thanks for all your work to complete building footprints in the Detroit metro. I have a small favor to ask: when you map blocks in the City of Detroit, could you make sure to complete all building footprints on a block? It's hard to distinguish between incomplete mapping and highly vacant blocks. This is less of an issue in the suburbs.

Thanks, noted.

Thanks for the update! If you haven't, please do revert my edit.

Thanks, it looks like I inadvertently attached a parking area to the existing residential area. I've now made some refinements along the northern boundary to exclude retail. IMO, the feature should be subdivided.