It was osm.org/changeset/146640842

I also found osm.org/changeset/102356624 on the Fauntleroy ferry dock, by the same user.

The intention was to retain the intent of the previous editor, who had tagged several ways around the terminal with access=customers, which would also impact routing. I'm personally content with using the fee key instead, or removing the toll tag without replacement.

Hi mylocat,

I don't think these access tags are the best to use on ferry roads. access=customers and access=private would be more typically be used on the last roads leading to a destination like a residence or a business, not a major state through-route. Routers will take these tags to mean that the roads in question shouldn't be routed on unless they are the last segments of the trip.

I'm going to go ahead and replace those access tags with toll=yes, which will indicate that the roads can't be used without payment while still indicating that they are valid for routing through.

Hi Valustaides,

Why is type=multipolygon better than type=boundary for this park? From my reading of the wiki, the latter appears to be more appropriate, and the combination of boundary=* and type=multipolygon seems to be explicitly discouraged on the wiki pages for both relation types.

Hi Cyclecommuter,

The general convention in OSM is that lanes should only be separate features if they are physically separated from the rest of the road. Since the only thing that separates these bike lanes from N 83rd St is a thin strip of paint, the existing tags on the street feature are the best way to map them.

If they *were* physically separated, it's helpful to change the existing cycleway tag on the street to "separate", so that the same bike lane doesn't show up twice on the map.

Also, separate cycleways should connect to the road at the beginning and end, so that navigation apps work properly. That's the "impossible oneway" warning you may have seen in the editor when you saved your edits.

Thank you for mapping!

Hi MxxCon,

police=range is a valid tag: osm.wiki/Tag:police=range . I appreciate your edits, but I would also appreciate it if you would put back the tags you removed. Thank you!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135895782

It's discouraged in OSM to have changesets span such a large geographic area. It would've been best to break this changeset into 3: one for the Baker area, one for the Alpental area, and one for the Crystal Mountain area.

Also, when deleting features, it's important to explain how you know the feature doesn't exist. Just saying you're "cleaning up" doesn't really help other mappers understand what you're doing or why.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128966514

Oh good! Thank you!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117023001

Hi yasobara,

When I hiked this section in summer 2021, the prior alignment of the trail was correct. Was the short section between the I-90 overpass and the parking lot decommissioned since then?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117023001

Could you elaborate more about what and why you are cleaning up here? What is your basis for deleting these routes?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128966514

Hi GPetrie, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I see that you have now deleted this stretch of road from the map twice. You may not be aware that OSM uses the "on the ground rule", which means if a feature exists in real life, it belongs on the map. It appears in this case the tagging was wrong, suggesting that this was a public road rather than a private driveway. A more constructive edit would've been to correct the tagging and add an `access=private` tag, which would properly indicate to map users that to walk or drive here would be trespassing.

I have now re-added this feature as a private driveway, which will indicate to map users that they are not allowed to use this road as if it were a public road.

Completely deleting features in an effort to hide them from map users tends to backfire, because sooner or later a mapper will come along and add the unmapped feature, but without any of the knowledge that you have. In the long run, correcting the tagging of mis-mapped features or leaving a note for another mapper is a much better way to resolve issues (like trespassing) than deleting problem features.

Hi 0wu,

I think you're being much too generous with what counts as a "footway" in changesets like this. I just walked along Dayton Ave N an hour ago, and some of the sections you've tagged as footway are just a gravel shoulder. The east side, just north of N 85th St, doesn't even have a shoulder, and pedestrians have to walk in the street there currently.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126041250

I think a friend sent me a blog post or trip report a while back that he had found while goofing off at work, and then I found some USGS resources with a little more detail about them, and was able to work out the location from descriptions and photos, and find them in aerial imagery in JOSM. I bookmarked the location for myself but wasn't sure whether to map them, or let them stay relatively secret.

I eventually decided to map them, in case they ever help out someone in an emergency, and there is probably some public value to knowing about structures that have been built in wilderness. Also, since they're not publicly accessible and it's a long hike to get to them, I don't think there's too much risk in making them slightly better-known.

Hi OrcaDan,

What was the purpose of changing all the tracks within the Capitol Forest to unclassified? To my eyes, these are classic examples of tracks.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/58719302

Hi 0wu,

I was biking down Sand Point Way today, and the sidewalks you added along that street mostly don't seem to exist. Rather, I just saw a regular shoulder on each side, which can be used for car parking and isn't dedicated to pedestrians.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116819994

I don't understand mixing public transport v1 tags on a way with public transport v2 tags on that same way's nodes, and I've never seen public transport stops mapped that way anywhere else. However, since I haven't lived in Jinan for a long time, I will leave things tagged that way if that's how you prefer it.

DeepL translation:
我不明白在一条路上的公共交通v1标签和同一条路的节点上的公共交通v2标签混在一起，而且我从来没有在其他地方看到过公共交通站点这样的地图。不过，由于我没有在济南住过很长时间，如果你喜欢这样，我可以不做标记。

Hi G1asshouse,

Sorry, I missed your comment earlier and am only just seeing it now.

That number format was set by the Vespucci editor, not by me. If I go now in that editor and try to format the number using spaces, it will reformat the number to the current format before uploading. I realize now that the prior format was also correct. What probably happened was that I edited the POI next door, saw the editor reformat my input, (wrongly) assumed that the spaces-only format was wrong, and changed that to match the Vespucci format.

I had a look today, and also did not find any signage. I don't have any special knowledge of the area, but it does seem plausible that "Adams" is actually just Cowlitz.

Hi Omnific,

I noticed you added `amenity=police` to the SPD stables at Westcrest Park. This tag is meant only for a standard police station, typically where a member of the public could walk in to file a police report, etc. The stables don't have any public-facing facilities, so I think `amenity=police` should be removed.

Regards,
wislander

Not a revert, that tag is left over from 2 changesets ago.