Hi gadjet,

Yesterday I noticed that my GPS was telling my to turn at "49" while driving north on I 90 near Buffalo. I've never before seen notation for an exit on my GPS. It should be telling me to turn to reach NY 78, Depew Lockport, or something similar.

When i tried to understand why it was reporting "49" instead of the more usual destination(s), I discovered what I believe to be a redundant ref that you added to the way following the motorway_junction node. Here are the tags for that way:

destination:ref=NY 78
destination=Depew;Lockport
highway=motorway_link
junction:ref=49
lanes=1
maxspeed:advisory=40 mph
oneway=yes
ref=49
... Etc.

The junction:ref = 49 is fine but the other ref (the last line above) is confusing my GPS and I believe it is also incorrect.

What do you think?

@quincylvania
I updated my river tagging preset to use your scheme with rapids:name. I use the same scenario for named bridges with a bridge:name tag. Many OSM mappers change the name of the highway to the name of the bridge in such cases but that is obviously incorrect. The same logic applies here.

Why relations don't supply tags to their members really puzzles me. It seems only logical that unless specially tagged differently, all members of the main_branch of a river should have the same name tag and the tag waterway=river as it would if the it were only a simple way.

Good talking with you....

Thanks for the clarification quincylvania. I was feeling embarrassed that I had misunderstood the Wiki. My memory wasn't clear enough to recall how I made the decision to tag a segment of the river with waterway=rapids but now I understand. Interestingly, the McKenzie River relation includes that segment as a member of its "main_branch" (I might've done that myself but again, my memory not clear) but apparently renderers don't look at the relation, only the way itself.
Anyway, I retagged the segment in question to use waterway=river and rapids=yes. This doesn't break the river way yet still carries the appropriate information so overall it seems a better approach.

Is everybody okay with that?

Another thought is that in this case, and I don't recall the specifics of my decision, when a rapids has a measurable length, say 100m or whatever, then drawing a weir across the river isn't a very accurate way to represent it. My intention was possibly to somehow model these rapids that way, I dunno.

I think you should change the way it's mapped. When I did this, I was under the impression that a tagging a segment of the waterway was a legitimate way to map rapids. It looks like the tagging you suggest is correct, or more correct. I may have taken my guidance from an older Wiki article, I really don't know.

Hi,
I believe the tagging is correct as is but feel free to replace the line of rapids I've drawn as a way with a node if you wish.

Splits in ways are very common in OSM. We do it for highways all the time, for example, whenever the speed limit changes. Dealing with such splits is a rendering issue.

But, as I said, feel free to change it to a node or weir if you wish.

I only tag a maxspeed if I see one posted. However, ten years ago I might have tagged a few familiar roads that had no posted speed limit with a maxspeed I thought was reasonable.

Hard to recall now some of the tagging habits I had when I was just starting out. Sometimes I see an object I tagged long ago and wondered WTF? I did that?

Okay, I deleted it. Thanks Russ.

Hi Russ,

I'm editing stuff in the Doi Ang Khang Project area (I was just there a few days ago) and came across the Lao Ting Hotel you added back in 2015. AFAIK all the resorts and guest houses in the neighborhood have been closed for a number of years (by King #10 I'm told). Google Maps now lists this place as อ่างขางแค้มป์ปิ่ง, which means Angkhang Camping.
I did not see this place personally so there is no way I can't tell what's there now from my own experience but I think we should delete the node entirely because we can't copy from Google.
What do you think?
Dave

This way has no tags at all. It runs through a wooded area where satellite imagery shows no road.

I'll remove it.

Hi Julien,
You created an untagged way near the Chok Chai Elephant Camp. Is it a track you traveled on? It has no ID. The coords of a point near its start follows:

19.1910203, 98.8969731

I wanted to ask before deleting it.

Cheers,
Dave

Hello again,

I checked my journals and came up with 60 miles west of Paxson as the extent of the pavement. So as I checked along the highway, I discovered a 60-mile milepost that I had conveniently added when I was there in 2021

I changed the surface of all the highway segments from Tangle Lakes west to that milemarker to surface=asphalt, added lanes=2 and uploaded the data.

Unfortunately, it is not easy. I used a GPS and camera images correlated with my trace when I drove the Denali Hwy back in 2021. I did not save those images. All I can recall is that the recent new pavement extended approximately 60 miles from Paxton almost to the Susitna River bridge.

I might be able to determine where that point was if I carefully check over your changeset to see which segment you changed and revert it,

Hello,

I noticed that you changed the surface of the Denali Hwy west of Tangle Lakes from "paved" to "unpaved"

I drove that road in 2021 (and several times before that) and I updated the tagging that section to paved because the pavement had been extended to about mile 60 from the Paxton side. Did the pavement disappear, or revert through weathering to unpaved again?

Okay, thanks, Julien!

The Thai Topo I mentioned is available as an imagery layer in JOSM. I have been using the OpenTopoMap layer for some time but the Thai Topo layer has details the other doesn't have, for example, boundaries. However, they must be hand-traced from the imagery, just as you would need to do if it was a satellite image. Tedious but better than nothing. It also contains the names of many residential streets, temples, schools, towns, routes, waterways, etc. The route refs, however, are sometimes out-of-date so I presume the data isn't all that fresh. But for the rest, names of towns, rivers, and temples etc., don't usually change over time and the checking I've done shows mostly good agreement with current names.

Please give me some tips about the GITSDA data. I went to the site Paul_012 provided in Discourse and could get only KMZ data for boundaries.

PS: should we move this discussion to the existing Discourse discussion of this topic: "Looking for More Sources on Official Boundaries"?

Sorry, the second sentence above should read: "In the Wiki, it states that there is no admin level 5 in Thailand."

Hi Julien.

Today I came across this boundary you mapped or adjusted and I have a couple of questions. In the Wiki, it states that there is no admin level 6 in Thailand. This boundary between Mae Taeng and Chiang Dao, both being districts (amphoes), would seem to fit into the admin_level 6 category. In addition, I have zero experience with naming or assigning boundary tags so I'm unsure about how to name this one, or even if I should.

I've been using the Thai Topo map in JOSM to adjust boundaries in my area of Saraphi and it seems to be fairly accurate. You quoted WorldTopoMap as your source here but JOSM doesn't offer that imagery. Is it still available in the iD editor?

The Saraphi boundary I mentioned always defines two sub-districts. Saraphi itself of course and the various bordering subdistricts. The name of that one is Saraphi in OSM. But perhaps naming such a boundary would be incorrect

Moreover, the Wiki definitions are always suspect because so many contributors and editors are clueless or don't know how to write, or both, but it seems clear that admin_level 5 is not in use in Thailand.

What are your feelings about adding a name and/or changing the admin_level of this boundary?

Dave

Actually, it was the Mae Taeng River I aligned

Hello,

Where did you get the name "Chamadevi Road" for route 1015 in Lamphun?

I cannot verify that as the name and
I'm doing a lot of mapping in that area and would like to use your sources if they are valid.

Sorry if this translation is bad:

สวัสดีครับ
ถนนชามเดवी (Thanon Chamadevi) สำหรับเส้นทาง 1015 ในลำพูน คุณได้ชื่อนี้มาจากไหนครับ
ผมยืนยันชื่อนี้ไม่ได้ ผมกำลังทำแผนที่อยู่ในพื้นที่นั้นอยู่ครับ ถ้าแหล่งข้อมูลของคุณเชื่อถือได้ ผมอยากจะใช้ข้อมูลของคุณด้วยครับ