OpenStreetMap
ElliottPlack's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 110474952 | Here is an example of how the data looks when complete: way/914122739
|
|
| 110474952 | Is this a regular road that has bike lanes on either side? The way to do that is to add the cycleway=lane tag as an *additional* attribute to the roadway tags. So in this case, you wouldn't want to change the residential tag of the road, just add that there are bicycle lanes. In ID editor, you hit the "add field" area and choose Bike Lanes. Then choose if there is a left, right, or both-sides lane.
|
|
| 109950611 | One question I have is if this is indeed a bridge and part of the network: note/2828393 |
|
| 109950611 | Thanks again. Alright, this one is updated. I split it up so that the crossings have the right tags and, as a bonus, added it as a cycle route which will enhance how it shows up on sites that use OSM cycle route data: relation/13148453 |
|
| 109950611 | Got it. I will leave the bridge since it will open very soon. Does it have a real name or designation yet? also, further down the riverwalk, where it goes under division, it looks like the riverwalk is just along the water, and the roadway goes overhead. no tunnel per se, is that right? |
|
| 109950611 | Thanks! At the Mill Street intersection, two questions: Is that ped bridge online yet? And, does the riverwalk require going across Main, across Mill, and back across Main (in a big U) or can they cross direct across Mill? |
|
| 109950611 | Tell me a little more about this Riverwalk. It is a paved path along the water, right? Like a promenade? And it is signed for bike/ped access?
|
|
| 110474165 | Looks good!
|
|
| 110471841 | Added this back |
|
| 110471841 | Thank you. I have added the sections where it is a regular lane, near Small Street, and a Sharrow over the bridge. I will restore the protected lane per your description here! Have any photos of the facility? I want to get down there and check it out. |
|
| 109947187 | OK. Thanks for the response. The way to add this information is not to convert these to marked crossings. That information goes on a separate point, where the crosswalk intersects the street. Can you try and remove the lights again where applicable? You can add highway=stop to the intersection points that are now governed by a stop sign instead. |
|
| 109950220 | This changeset looks good generally. I fixed the spelling of a park by removing abbreviations.
|
|
| 110467395 | According to the SBY GIS site, the sections along Division St are Sharrow only. Is the website wrong here? https://salisbury.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c10e82df2db74447a7e997cac0aa2f63 |
|
| 110471841 | Hello there! Did you happen to see my other comments on some of these changesets? We waited 10 days before starting the rollback process. If this is really installed, and it sounds like it is, that is great, but there is no imagery or other data that can be used to verify this. What side of the roadway is the lane one? is it two way? are pedestrians allowed? There is a method to add these sort of things to OSM, I'd be happy to help with. |
|
| 109947572 | This looks good. The waterfront areas added are indeed city owned per https://opendata-salisbury.hub.arcgis.com/apps/city-owned-lands/explore
|
|
| 109947340 | Rolled this back in full by adding the cycleway right on the street changeset/110472747
|
|
| 109947187 | This changeset removed a crosswalks and traffic signals where there was no need to do so, and generally undid previous mappers work. There are a few useful edits here but they should be done individually, rather than in a big changeset like this. changeset/110472378
|
|
| 109946744 | This changeset is generally good. The new cycleway is in the MDOT dataset. It should be unabbreviated and unneeded crossings removed.
|
|
| 109946410 | This changeset is mostly good, but some attention should be put into the roundabout added south of Beaverdam Creek
|
|
| 109945618 | Rolled this back in changeset/110471841
|