Hi Steve, this changeset did indeed introduce quite a few duplicated railway=rail. Maybe you could take some time and delete some of them?

I'm deleting a few right now, it's pretty tedious to carefully go through and delete the railway that is not a member of the relation while making sure not to damage anything else.

The ways I have deleted so far are duplicating members of osm.org/relation/4743862 but are not themselves members of it. I haven't checked if there are similar issues with any other relations in the changeset (If there is a problem communicating with the server, JOSM can get confused about what has been saved to the main database and offer to upload things again, leading to situations like this where there are lots of duplicates).

It looks like there is also some work to do fixing up the relation. I guess someone deleted the wrong duplicate in some spots without realizing that the one in the relation was 'better' to keep. As I've indicated above, I've been very careful about this, so it wasn't me, the edit I've just done to the relation fills in one of the gaps.

As I finish up my edit, I wonder how much is left to do, but I guess there is some checking to be done to make sure the relation is fixed up properly, and it would be good to check for any remaining duplicates, to head off any further damage to the relation from naive edits.

Thanks,

Max

There are approach bridges on each end that are not suspension bridges. The suspension part of the bridge is only about 8600 feet long:

http://www.mackinacbridge.org/about-the-bridge-8/

There's no policy that justifies this change.

I hope you've made sure to add every island to all the lake relations before you did this? Last time someone got all fussy about the lakes having natural=coastline, Isle Royale disappeared.

Can you take a look at the oneway on North Whittlesey Avenue (17219871) ?

It doesn't seem to match up with the imagery, but I see you are active in the general area and don't want to change it just based on the (mid 2014 Bing) imagery.

You could consider using uMap for event routes and the like. Here's an example made by importing the route you had saved:

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/anonymous-edit/62564%3AogYGbpr2TNlNiNJznIpQYl7JcYQ

Well, we are at an impasse. I think I'll change it back to primary and if you still think it is trunk after you have driven it a few times you can change it back.

It is not an expressway. That is is overbuilt makes it look like one in the aerial imagery.

Right. In this case 100% of the intersections are at grade. The stuff at osm.org/changeset/33053301#map=17/45.85630/-87.02232 is not really ramp like, there are stop lights, and there are railroad crossings.

There aren't a whole lot of intersections in the longer stretch, but that;s more because they built the road as a bypass through a swamp. Which is something that would happen with roads more deserving of trunk, but in this case it isn't bypassing anything, and we get back to where I started, the road is ridiculously overbuilt and doesn't actually serve a different function than the stretches on either end of it.

"partial control of access" is not exactly specific. A stop sign would pretty much meet that definition.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/glossary/glossary_listing.cfm?TitleStart=E ?

I always thought that expressway was for roads with grade separation at (especially major) intersections. In this case, the major intersections are stop lights.

There's a stop light at the southern end and another at the divergence of M 35 and no stretch longer than about 3 miles without a crossing.

The only road that wasn't connected to it when it was built was 26th road (by Masonville). I guess the minor streets in Gladstone also aren't connected, but several connections in the span of a mile is not really limited access.

The stretch you have marked trunk is not limited access. It's not connected to much, but it isn't limited access.

I live just down the road from the stretch you marked trunk between Gladstone and Rapid River there. I agree that it looks an awful lot like trunk, and it even has a special speed limit set by the state (65 instead of 55), but it's really just horribly overbuilt and isn't functionally any different than the stretches on either end.

Is the imagery out of date here?

There is some kind of left turn marking on this section of townline:

osm.org/way/179263323

that contradicts this turn restriction:

osm.org/relation/4656461

From the imagery I think it might be possible to do a u turn, but it isn't clear enough that I want to change anything.

Hi-

I came across a sidewalk you had added and wanted to point out that connecting sidewalks to the road network (by making sure they are connected by a node) helps routing software use them better.

For example, here the routing engine doesn't see that the sidewalk is available:

osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=41.92820%2C-87.68922%3B41.92654%2C-87.68787#map=18/41.92737/-87.68846

and here it is able to make use of the sidewalk:

osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=41.92820%2C-87.68922%3B41.92858%2C-87.68823#map=18/41.92843/-87.68929

Hello, I was working on something else and came across some of the sidewalks you have added. I just wanted to point out that if you connect them to each other and the adjacent streets, it helps some users of openstreetmap to use the sidewalks to find routes.

Here's an example using a short route:

osm.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=42.36950%2C-83.09908%3B42.37058%2C-83.09812

Drag the green marker across the street and it can't find a route anymore:

osm.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=42.36939%2C-83.09941%3B42.37058%2C-83.09812

For most programs, the connection has to be a point that is part of both of them, just overlapping isn't enough.

I haven't looked at more than a couple, but it looks like a bunch of the refs on ways in this changeset have been set to "IN XX", which I think must be a mistake, as they are in Ohio.

There was some sort of accident with ways 17835459 and 171258574 here, they got connected to a bunch of the foot paths. I've fixed it.

It also seems it wasn't a hotosm project.

Is this account related to the other accounts starting with "ClayBurgess"?

If a single person is making these edits, it's preferable they use a single account.