RobJN, thanks for the StreetComplete reminder. I do know that app. I don’t have an android phone currently, but it’s a great option for those who do.

Or rather, this (forgot one node)

Thanks mmd! I was hoping for a quality Overpass tip to improve the query :)

Like this ?

Also, interestingly, someone on hacker news pointed out that the example image highlights a sign for an exit speed limit, not the main road speed limit :) This to prove the point that this kind of technology a) needs improvement, so it can only benefit from being open source and b) the results will need the crucial human mapper eye to be useful for OSM.

Yes, thanks for adding that, edited the post with the link.

The Android app is open source pizzaiolo, have you looked into submitting a pull request? It’s on the team radar I know, but just haven’t been able to make it a priority.

GOwin, I’ll work on that!

I also posted this on the Improve OSM blog.

Beta 4 is out in the mean time. Release notes.

We had a disk space issue…Should be solved now. Thanks for reporting!

I agree that it could be improved, but I do think that it is a move in a good direction and will encourage especially new users by making them feel part of the community. Some improvements I can think of..

• Ability to customize the message
• Not sending a message by default when ‘approving’ a changeset if the flag is not ‘review requested’ or ‘new user’
• make it more obvious that a message will be sent as a changeset comment when you ‘approve’ a changeset. At least remind people at first that this is happening.

On the OSM server side you should be able to opt out of emails, perhaps this is already possible, but if not it should be.

Great work on this tool, Wille.

Obviously but very importantly:

• Before copying anything into OSM the license needs to be properly vetted.
• If you are planning to perform any kind of bulk update, the full extent of the Import Guidelines applies.

The Cygnus web interface links to my diary entry that points out these things in big capital letters, but it cannot be stressed enough!

Hi all, Thanks a lot for your thoughtful responses. Here’s a followup I just posted to talk-us:

Hi all,

I haven’t abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me a while to read through all the diary comments + what is being said in this thread. I intend to follow up with another diary post where I try to collect this smart crowd’s thoughts and suggestions, but it will probably not until after State of the Map US that I get to this.

In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange: osm.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168

Since 1) this road does not seem to serve an important connecting role in the long distance road network 2) the density of abutters and related driveway / parking exits I judged a downgrade warranted. Please discuss here or on osm.org/changeset/52903464 .

On the topic of tagging for the renderer, two things: 1) A US-specific rendering would be really neat 2) Trunk ‘appendices’ like the one I just downgraded do make rendering at low zooms tricky – you end up with short segments that seem to end in nothing.

Yea, the OSM wiki actually has 40 MPH which perhaps makes more sense. Living in a rural state where speed limits are up to 80 MPH colors my thinking I guess.

Another new diary entry that is related to this topic: Mapping Center Turn Lanes in the United States

Yes, thanks, corrected.

escada: I’ve seen transit – it looks more complex to me than turnlanes:turns for mapping lane connectivity. Can you help me out mapping this intersection using the transit schema? I think relations would be needed, but not sure how to map the transition for example from 1-2-3:

It looks like 1-2 can be done with ways, as indicated below, but I am not sure how to identify that the left turn lanes from 2 to 3 lead to the left two lanes of segment 3.

My recent diary entry with a ‘mapping challenge’ for a complicated intersection is relevant to this topic. I’d appreciate your feedback!

Wow, thanks for all the feedback.

I am happy to see people seem to prefer the turn:lanes approach so far, which is simpler than the relation based schema I have also seen. Mapbox had a blog post that highlighted both.

One thing that would still lead me to want to use relations in some places is my second ‘requirement’ to correctly identify lane connectivity – exactly which (turn) lanes connect to which. So how to map that making a left turn here (1->2->3)

means that you have to go from lane to lane on the consecutive ways like this:

For that you would still need a relation, or is there a simpler / other / better way?