Hi,

First of all, thank you for adding many WWII sites to the Alaska OSM map.

However, you have tagged an area near Dutch Harbor with some tags I don't think are correct. I'm referring to the "Summer's Bay Canon Battery. " You tagged it landuse=military, which may be true, but I believe it should be tourism=attraction, attraction=historic.

Also, is the name of this place an official name? If so, you have misspelled "cannon" as "canon". Otherwise, the name really isn't appropriate unless it's known as such by locals, in which case it would best be tagged as loc_name=Summer Bay Cannon Battery.
What do you think?
Best,
Dave

The changeset comment should be merely DigitalGlobe-Premium. The "2019-03-28 survey part" is an unintended carryover from the previous changeset.

Hi,
I do a lot of work aligning the terrible PGS coastline of Alaska. It's slow difficult work and the number of hours required to properly edit all of Alaska's coastline is daunting. Today, while working in the Glacier Bay area, I came across this changeset of yours that quotes Geobase as a source of your coastline data and from what I cans see it's a huge improvement over the miserable PGS data. Can you suggest a method for me to obtain some of this same data?
I realize this all happened a long time go but perhaps you still have a finger in that pie.
Thanks,
AlaskaDave

That's good to know, Giblet.

The boundary of the Fruit Belt is nearly the same as the one I drew however because its western boundary extends to Main Street it includes the controversial Medical Center "neighborhood" mentioned in the article. I wonder if that neighborhood has any mappers who will defend that name and want to separate it from the Fruit Belt?
It's an interesting problem.

Haha - that very article is the reason I decided to revise the map. I left Buffalo many years ago and live in Alaska and Thailand now so I'm not a "local" in any sense of the word but I do have a continuing interest in the Buffalo area.

Your idea of a boundary relation is a good one. I would rather not connect it to street nodes, however, because it will possibly add complexity to maintaining bus routes, etc. As for labeling a point near High & Jefferson as the center, sure I can do that.

By the way, the reason I have an interest in this area is because it's my hometown. I lived on High St near Herman and attended PS 39 for the first 10 years of my life.

Hi,
I took the positional source from a link in the Wikipedia article cited and did not check for copyright status, thinking if it was in Wikipedia it was okay to use. I agree that it cannot be used as such given the copyright issue you raise. However, rather than revert the changeset. let me redraw the boundaries approximately following the guidelines in the written Wikipedia article.

However, the problem of the centroid and where it happens to render is not something I think should influence whether or not we describe the Fruit Belt using a node or an area. Also, I don't believe this is an "administrative area" in the usual sense so using administrative boundaries wouldn't be appropriate or correct.

AFAIK, this area is merely a locality. Unless you know otherwise, I think it's best to leave it as place=neighborhood.

I will go back and change the boundary to align better with Michigan Ave., etc., and remove the reference to city-data.com.

What do you think?

I think it is, especially when the beginning of a river is not obvious from the available maps.These nodes don't take up a lot of space and IMO offer useful information to anyone curious about a named river's starting position.

Hi Jordan,

There are two guest houses with this same name that you created. Can you please check to determine which one is in the correct position and delete the erroneous one?

Dave

It is the beginning of the named river, its "source", according to the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. This is the beginning of the waterway with name=Fortymile River.

Also, check way id:664723894; it's not a building. Possibly a pond.

Also, the area enclsded by way id:664723893 is visible on DigitalGlobe-Standard and is not a building or a pond. Please check your edits in the area.

Well, the place you tagged is actually a paved area where people can walk. There are small garden beds inside it but they are purely ornamental. It's the outer way tag I disagree with.

Actually, I am familiar with the Boston Common. I lived in Boston for 10 years back in the 70s. The name is a carry-over from when that place, correctly tagged as a park in OSM, was actually a "common", a multiple-use area available to the locals, the commoners. That's why I say controversial. Many places in the U.S. that have the word "common" in their names are better tagged as parks, as is this one in Boston.

The place in Anchorage is merely a large paved area. The garden areas are not part of the paved area (as they are inners in the overall multipolygon), so would not be part of the highway=pedestrian.

Thank you for your prompt reply. I see you did quite a bit of mapping in Anchorage. Just out of curiosity, where do you live? Sinc my retirement, I live in Thailand 7 months of the year and only go back to Alaska for summers. I love Alaska but its winters no longer excite me LOL
Dave

Hi,
I was adding a shop in downtown Anchorage today and came across this area that you tagged leisure=common. That tag is on the way, however, that way is also part of a relation that is tagged with highway=pedestrian.
IMO, highway=pedestrian (with area=yes) would be the more correct tagging scheme.
The use of leisure=common is a bit controversial, especially in a city.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Dave

Wow, my hat's off to you Kurt. I can't imaging climbing that SOB at my age. I still think highway=path might be better suited because of the whole idea of footway being designated, that is, legally restricted, for pedestrian traffic. I'm retagging the footways I added on the Iditarod Trail in Alaska for the same reason. But I'm happy to leave that decision to you.
Dave

Hi,
I noticed you added a way as highway=footway in this changeset. I doubt it meets the definition as defined in the Wiki, "For designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for pedestrians". I'm betting it's a narrow path used by motorcycles. Have you visited the footway personally? I have not but I am familiar with the general area and find it hard to believe such a designation exits for that way.
Cheers,
Dave

No problem. Sorry I took such a stern tone yesterday. I'm used to being the only mapper working in these remote areas. If the Conflict Dialog was more informative and straightforward to use it would make it so much easier to resolve them. I had to quit my session and then come back to clean up stray nodes later.
Thanks for the quick reply, b-jazz. I'm slowly adding parts of the giant Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. One of the up sides is that its boundary often follows the coast making it a good replacement for the ugly PGS coastlines imported years ago. The down side is that it's such a massive refuge.

Hi,

I noticed you removed the man_made=pier tag from a pier in Dutch Harbor. You saved it as natural=coastline, with access=private and surface=wood but removed the man_made=pier tag so it makes no sense now.

Can you take a look? It is way id:21477171

Thanks,
Dave

bjazz,

I'm working in that area and have been replacing coastlines. I just had to quit a session because of too many conflicts to deal with, it appears that they were your edits.

Let me now when you're through so I can patch things up.

I agree that those PGS coastlines are an abomination and I usually delete the source tag but I am doing so many modifications lately I sometimes forget.
Feel free to remove it if you come across a coastline that has been aligned by me or anybody else.