Again Nearmap was NOT used

Did NOT use the Nearmap imagery for this changeset. I tested it as a custom background URL here so I could use it for a separate project. Would have been nice though...

Yep, reverted

Descriptive name and dupe building removed. Version and changeset should probably be redacted

Legendary Changeset #1

2000!

Again, Deer Hangout is a personal interpretation of a place, not an official name. leisure=park is also not the right tagging here. I changed it to natural=scrub based on streetside and aerial imagery. It looks like badly maintained grassland with scattered shrubs, so I think tagging as a shrub is correct.

Done, thanks for the help!

Makes sense. The sign was on a shed. By where the driveway splits off there is a sign saying "No Delivery Trucks Past This Point." Is this to be mapped?

Just so you know, Penn Ave is signed "Private Drive, Keep Out" so I changed it back to access=private

I feel like tagging access=private on the roads around the school isn't right. While it is gated with a no tresspassing sign, which would normally imply the tag, I'm less confident it's as practical here. The wiki also states that "Access is only with permission on an individual basis" for roads with this tag. While it's nice to have blanket definitions for tags based on signage, gateage, etc, I think it's better to consider how the roads are used. It's a community center, a school, and a campus used for many other things. It seems impractical to have traffic not routing through here, though it is gated and posted. Thoughts?

Tagging this as access:delivery=no does not make sense. This gate closes off the ford for the winter and for big storms. It has nothing to do with delivery trucks. I have removed the tag.

Nevermind, I see that there are 916 or so. Removed. Hopefully solved

Yeah, damn. The addr:state=PA was 10 items that I thought had other addr: tags but were missing it, but I guess not. I'll check the Ardmore=Ardmore ones and fix that, but @mueschel said there are 1000 with something like this tag, but the database says ~140...

Thanks for helping me correct my mistakes guys

Please read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Yet if it's common practice to tag that way, though it may be wrong, shouldn't it be done that way nonetheless?

According to https://www.mccrone.com/mm/a-closer-look-at-baseball-infield-sand/ :
"For a typical, or so-called low-maintenance, nonprofessional infield, the components consist of a mix of 70 percent sand, 15 percent clay, and 15 percent silt. For Major League Baseball, the infield mix is a bit different: 55 percent sand, 30 percent clay, and 15 percent silt."

I believe most baseball stadiums around the country do have natural=sand and surface=dirt as the the tags for the infield, is that the proper tagging to add?

Oh I basically never use the MontCo imagery for that reason. Fun how the best imagery for me is old (esri clarity) or misaligned (PEMA). The best MontCo imagery is Nearmap, but it's licensed for county use. Ah well, we're probably spoiled by the Phila imagery.

100% makes sense. Using the wiki definition of private, there are two qualifiers: Gate or (No tresspassing et al) Sign. The driveways I was removing the tag from had neither. Eventually, I'll get to detailing these neighborhoods much more, and neighborhoods I have already completed do have access=destination on all of their driveways. I'll probably manually add the building shapefiles from MontCo (west of 23 should hopefully be done by summer), as drawing them is a pain for me, and then I'll get to adding driveways and other neighborhood detail which will be tidied. The access=private on the driveways I was removing it from should not have the tag, so I was removing it in the meantime.

1776 changesets 🔥