Just wanted to say that I always see your edits in Sacramento, and came across this changeset while looking for something else. I appreciate all the work you put in to make the map better!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168680547

Just wanted to say that I always see your edits in Sacramento, and came across this changeset while looking for something else. I appreciate all the work you put in to make the map better!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168680547

As a note, it's OK for the trees to be individually mapped, even if the forest polygon is mapped.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168679640

Hi there - I'm undoing the deletions of sidewalks you made in this changeset because they are correct and more comprehensive than what you redrew in their place. My own local experience, street level imagery, and aerials all confirm them to be correct. Is there a reason you deleted them? It looks like you redrew part of them (which is also not preferred by the OSM community - it'd be better to modify the existing ones to preserve their history). Thanks!

osm.org/changeset/160959719

Hi there, it looks like you're downgrading the status of numerous cities in the United States. In OpenStreetMap, changes of this magnitude should be discussed with the community first. Some of us are discussing these changes in the OpenStreetMap US Slack (https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/), but the community forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org is another great choice for these discussions. I'll also direct others here so you can reply in this thread any anyone concerned can see.

I'll note that most of your changes are against the community consensus and will probably be reverted. To start with, could you share what information you used when deciding to downgrade Scottsdale to place=town?

Thanks, and welcome to OSM! We'd love to see you in those community discussions!

As a note to anyone reviewing these upgrades in the future, I also think D street from McKinley to at least 45th, if not further, has features consistent with a tertiary, but it's narrower and probably has lower traffic, so I didn't upgrade it.

Similarly, 45th from about Bertha Henschel Park to J is very tertiary-like, but probably lower traffic than some of these others and serves less cross-neighborhood traffic and more funneling of people to H and J, so I didn't upgrade them yet.

It's also possible that 39th from McKinley to H isn't quite tertiary, but the rest of it is and I thought it made sense to connect the route through to at least McKinley.

Last, if one were to upgrade those, I think Elvas would probably than be secondary along its length. It might be anyway, but it's a much higher class than the rest of those and much more similar to H than it is the neighborhood through routes. For now, leaving as is to not overclassify the neighborhood.

Noting that I'm reverting my own changeset here - see new changeset comment

osm.org/changeset/143446942

Hi there - thanks for all of your recent contributions. As a note, it's very helpful to your fellow mappers if you provide more detailed changeset comments. Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142996568

whoops, and sorry for vague language on my part. To clarify - was it removed from OSM based on a survey? And then at the end of my post, I was trying to say that it sounds like the bridge used to exist, but doesn't anymore. Thanks!

Hi - just checking - was the bridge removed based on a survey? Vacaville's GIS data shows connectivity across the channel there, but I know it's only intermittently shown on some imagery. Sounds like maybe the bridge was removed?

The residential area formerly labeled South Land Park in this changeset should also be shrunk - it covers commercial *and* industrial areas and should be split. But for now I just wanted to get the bad labels/searches removed in preparation to add the correct neighborhood boundaries (based on the City's neighborhoods dataset) to the map

Meant to note a source for this - I went by this spot earlier today. Co Mai's kitchen is gone and a new restaurant is in its place.

Oh wait, I see it in 2023 mapillary images - it's a new "yield to pedestrians" sign. Please disregard my question. Thanks!

Hi Stephen,

I'm wondering if you have a source for the yield sign at 11th and P on P street. I've never seen it in person and none of the remote sensing datasets have it either, but I haven't been through that intersection in a while. Is that a temporary construction sign or a new, permanent sign? Thanks!

Hi SilverWheel! I'm Nick, another mapper in Sacramento County. Welcome to OSM! I have one small bit of feedback, which is that the OSM community prefers that buildings are "squared" - that is, that corners are 90 degrees, unless a building is truly round. After tracing a building, you can automatically square all the corners by selecting the building and hitting the "Q" key on your keyboard. You'll see the corners move to line up at 90 degrees.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140294485

Reverting for use of Google Maps as source - see my comment on the other changeset for more information: osm.org/changeset/134219442

Reverted this changeset in:

osm.org/changeset/135866619

Hey there, just a heads up that I'm reverting the change you added here - sourcing data from Google Maps isn't allowed (and can get the whole project into trouble) - see this wiki article about the Google Maps license and how it forbids use in datasets like OSM: osm.wiki/Google

This page on the wiki has some alternatives to Google Street view (with varying last-update dates) that *are* allowed for use in OSM when cited: osm.wiki/Pick_your_mapping_technique#Street_view_data

Also, the speed limit in this changeset of 40 mph seems incorrect for this location - I've regularly seen 50 along this stretch (including looking at the same street view imagery). Is there a construction restriction (which shouldn't be included in OSM), or do you have an alternative source for that speed?

osm.org/changeset/135866527

OK, I'm wrong - there are quite a few paths around the edges of the park that still need to be mapped.

Hey there - just wanted to say thanks for fixing this area - I'd tried to make changes last week to reflect lane connectivity changes that were put in place last year, but realized today that I'd messed it up. Thanks for putting things right!

Hi Lactone - thanks for contributing the buildings in Sacramento. One comment I have since it looks like you contribute lots of buildings all over the world - most local communities I'm aware of prefer you square/orthoganalize the buildings you draw (you can press the Q key in both iD and JOSM, though that shortcut may vary by your keyboard locale) - that makes the geometries more useful and more likely to match what's on the ground. Just wanted to provide that feedback. Thanks!