Hey StreetSurveyor — mentioned this on slack (and happy to chat more about there as well) — but in this case, the place nodes that you removed in Barnstable were reflecting a case where the local significance of places differs from the legal administrative status of those places — and thus warranted mapping them separately.

In this case, while administratively, Hyannis is a village in the Town of Barnstable, several local mappers had come to the consensus that: the Town of Barnstable does not have a specific significant settlement within it called ‘the Town of Barnstable’ that warrants mapping with a place node. However, the main commercial area of Hyannis — while legally a village — is much more significant than the surrounding places, and thus warranted having a place node with the value town to show that. While the Town of Barnstable other villages (Cotuit, Barnstable VIllage, Osterville, etc) should have place=village nodes to reflect the hierarchy properly.

Simply adding a place node that matches the local administrative classification to the admin boundaries doesn’t really reflect the situation on the ground.

(Please forgive the long comment, Barnstable is definitely a bit of a unique case — and several of us had spent some time figuring out how to reflect that, so wanted to share that context).

Ahh -- the whitewater wiki page does not make it clear that that's the desired tagging osm.wiki/Whitewater_sports -- though it definitely has a lot more usage than just a whitewater:rapid_grade tag.

Will go ahead and add it, thanks!

Hey there --
Rather than deleting roads that aren't accessible to public, it's best to tag them as access=private.

That'll prevent someone else form coming along, re-adding the road since it's visible in the satellite imagery, but should be respected by routers, and is generally reflected by most renderers.

Whoops -- thanks for flagging, updated!

Ahhh, not sure how I missed that deprecation notice. Thanks for fixing!

Whoops, thanks for catching! Updated

Apparently! I'm guessing it was a rebrand.

Ahh, didn’t realize that old BINs were typically kept around. Thanks for the heads up!

Would you suggest adding the old_nycdoitt:bin tag to the construction area or leaving the building in place and just updating it to demolished:building=yes?

There may have been a sign last time I was there, but honestly I can't remember, I probably just gave it this name.

Ahh thanks for catching!

Ahh thanks for catching and fixing! Brain fart while mapping on the go.

Whoops -- that was definitely not my intention. Fixed. Thanks!

Accidentally kept my last edit’s changeset message — just adding a ghost Kitchen here.

On the ground, today this is a fenced off empty field with some signage about how it's controlled by the Water System of New York and a some leftover construction signage referencing the contract in the source link. You can see the specifics about this field if you look link from the source on pages 17 and 36-39.

Based on the signage that's there, and the info in the source link, it appears that the shaft is underground underneath this field, and the field itself is reserved for access to the shaft.

The source refers to this area as the shaft, so I went with that. Certainly open to other naming suggestions, perhaps "WSNY City Tunnel 3 Shaft 23B Site"?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134388448

The are two on-street dedicated zipcar parking spaces available for car share here.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134394102

Agreed, apologies Krako73, I should looked for closely at the history.

Hey there, I think folks are commenting on this changeset, because this is not how lakes are typically represented. Personally, I haven't been able to find any other examples of lakes that are represented by several multipolygons that have a super relation as you have done here.

Looking at other larger and more complicated lakes in the area -- such as Lake of the Woods and Lake Superior, they are both represented as a single multipolygon relation with many smaller ways forming the outer ring of the multipolygon. Both these appear to be editable in iD.

Additionally, if you look at the rendering of this lake on openstreetmap.org -- the labeling of Rainy Lake is now very inconsistent with the other lakes in the area -- each multipolygon is labelled instead of having a single label for the whole lake, like all other lakes in the area.

I came upon this changeset when I was working on a map style that only labeled large lakes at low zoom levels. The Rainy Lake label wasn't showing up, because it is appearing in the data as many small lakes instead of a single large lake.

In my opinion, you've made a good step by breaking up large ways -- but rather than having many multipolygons represent a single lake, we should use the ways that represent the lake's actual shoreline to form the outer ring of a single multipolygon, and eliminate the pieces of the ways that are just breaking up the lake into multiple pieces.

Good call -- updated.

As far as I can tell it does not, short kinda making something up like "82 Degraw Street Sculpture Garden". It's discussed here: https://www.brooklynpaper.com/columbia-street-waterfront-district-artwork/

It is very much visible from the street, though the actual grounds are not open to the public, so not sure if that warrants being mapped or not.

Bad changeset comment -- actually added missing lakes.