Thank you for noticing and calling it to my attention. I have fixed it in changeset 107999158.

That must have been an early "chunk" on the import as the validation scripts eventually had code to specifically check for it. I don't see near by areas with the same issue but will run some searches to see what other "chunks" had that same problem.

Thank you for fixing some of my mistakes!

I think I have corrected the rest in that area now.

Wow! I really messed up there. Thank you for pointing this out!

I think I have corrected it now in change set osm.org/changeset/106104718

Please let me know if I have missed any.

To the best of my knowledge, the accepted tagging for a cattle guard is barrier=cattle_grid. Makes sense that a router could have troubles with any barrier=* that does not include a motor_vehicle=yes. I guess it is a problem with the accepted tagging.

I will start adding that to any new cattle guard that I map. Thank you for improving my mapping!

p.s. Having once lived in an old ranch house where the main access (dirt) road had a cattle guard I am pretty familiar with them. :)

I assume that some router has decided that barrier=cattle_grid should default the same as barrier=gate (i.e. access=no). Care to share which router has this problem. Might want to put in a bug report on the router's project page.

Is the name really "Sand Mine"? That sounds more like a description to me.

Last time I was on Ortega Highway, less than a week ago, there was no signs pointing to this quarry and giving it a name, etc.

As much as I'd like that section double tracked (or even just a siding), that just does not exist today.

Can you use the lifecycle prefix on the siding you added? See: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

That will keep both the default renderer at OSM and the open railway map renderers showing what is actually on the ground now, not what is proposed for sometime in the future.

Thanks!

A change set covering all the area between Colorado Springs, Colorado and Oceanside, California?

Makes it hard for us located somewhere in that bounding box to see what you did.

Could you please keep the size of the bounding box a bit smaller in the future?

Thanks!

Regarding osm.org/relation/12030996 since there is a barrier=chain across the service way there really is no need for a turn restriction.

Regarding osm.org/relation/12030995 that should not exist at all as far as I can tell.

I will add an access=no to the chain barrier (not really needed but it won’t hurt) and remove the two turn restrictions.

For what it is worth, I walked right by that chain barrier yesterday and failed to really even notice it. :)

How did you determine these turn restrictions? While I admit that osm.org/relation/12030996 is a bad idea there are no signs on the street prohibiting it.

And for osm.org/relation/12030995 there are no signs prohibiting it and there is no reason not to turn right.

Edit should have been made on non-import ID of n76

Edit should have been made on non-import ID of n76.

oops! this should have been from user account n76 instead of n76_oc_import

No. I manually traced them from Bing imagery.

Under the n76_oc_import account I have been importing addresses from the Orange County GIS and that dataset had building outlines also apparently from Bing but the quality was so bad that I decided to import only the address and, if it exists, height data, as points.

I walked the trail adjacent to this neighborhood yesterday and took that as a nudge to trace the houses when I got home.

Are you sure about this speed limit change? I drove on this "40 MPH" section through that intersection the other week and did not see any changed speed limits. It was still 45 MPH to the intersection of Vaquero, then 35 MPH continuing south/west on Los Mares.

Boy, I guess I should have smaller change sets but I get carried away. My primary goal is to get rid of the deprecated and unused is_in:*=* and fix as many of the name_1=* tags as I can. The other fixes and updates are based on the JOSM validator algorithms (I like to clean that up as much as possible before uploading). And while I am looking at things I can't stop myself from adding things like pavement surface, stop signs, etc. Pretty soon it becomes a big change set.

Anyway, I think you are referring to the school that I removed at osm.org/#map=17/32.79659/-117.01130&layers=N

When the JOSM validator flagged duplicate addresses I found a node and a polygon. I was going to just "replace geometry" to merge the node into the polygon. But then I looked at the imagery. The older imagery showed what looked like a school. Some others showed maybe some construction. But the Bing imagery showed streets and completed house construction. So I came to the conclusion the school was no longer there, removed the school and added the new streets. I don't see names for those new streets in TIGER 2019, so they are currently unnamed residential which will be showing up as an error of some sort in things like Osmose. I hope I didn't totally screw that one up.

I see that you are doing some edits in the San Diego. Are you local? If so could you confirm the new streets and houses?

I am up the road in south Orange County. I guess I should make a road trip to confirm and maybe to get street names too. But if there is someone closer that would be great.

The change set comment of "15125" caught my eye. What is the meaning of that? Is it perhaps the street number for the one building you added?

Are you sure about this change in geometry?

I'll walk over there tomorrow to check but I'd like to verify what you were seeing.

Is it really named "Talega Gold Course"? I would have thought "golf" rather than "gold".

p.s. You've done a lot of mapping in the Talega area recently. More than I'd expect from a generic lyft driver. Are you a resident of the area? If so, then welcome!

Based on the state of La Pata it looks like Mapbox has newer imagery in this area than Bing. (Bing still shows the construction baracades while Mapbox shows the now current (by my survey) dual carriageway and line striping.)

Based on your edit attribution and the imagery, it looks like you used Bing. But the apparently newer Mapbox imagery shows quite a different road and parking around where you put a circular unclassified road.

Question: Have you done a on-site survey to see which imagery is (more) correct?