It’s an old unused fire station.

The building architecturally is a fire station and has a BFD (Brooklyn fire department?) engraved on it, but appears to the currently be empty.

Yes indeed, thanks for catching that. Updated!

Yeah — from my reading of the wiki, it seems little unclear where the difference between waterway=canal + tunnel=flooded and waterway=pressurized is, so I’m fine with either.

Though I think it’s not showing on certain waterway maps layers because certain layers explicitly exclude any man-made waterway types — so I don’t know if the tag change will impact that at all.

Hey there -- the classification of Barnstable and it's villages has been discussed pretty extensively in the OSMUS by many folks with local knowledge. I'd encourage you to checkout this thread https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CDW2RNQ5D/p1700002365783089 and engage in the conversation there before changing things extensively.

@streetsurveyor unless you have any strong objections, I’m going to go ahead and restore the place nodes for Barnstable’s villages.

Seems like these are Barnstable county borders so admin_level=6 would be correct? (Barnstable county encompass all of Cape Code — distinct from Town of Barnstable and Barnstable Village) — though diving into these ways it seems like they are all part of multiple boundary relations, so maybe they don’t need admin_levels at all, since that’s captured on each boundary relation?

It is! The building’s an old fire station building.

I definitely agree we should have the admin boundaries in there.

place=city/town/village/hamlet are typically used to map population/commercial centers.

Having them in addition to admin boundaries are helpful in a few cases — one main one being if the population center of a municipality isn’t at the center of the admin boundary area.

Another one is like this, where the legally definite municipalities don’t map 1:1 with legally defined municipalities.

What sort of mapping issues were you seeing with the place nodes?

It looks OSM Carto may only use place node for place labels, and not areas — as right now it looks like the labels for the Barnstable villages are all just gone from the map.

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!