Thanks for the reply. I recently spent a lot of time on those bridges in particular, and it does feel a little harsh to have them bulk-reclassified from remote, whether it's you or Fluffy doing it. (You can see my brief conversation with Fluffy in changeset/88278035.)

Part of *this* changeset has already been reverted in 93876737, and I'll be working on the bridges.

In the future I'd appreciate it you could make smaller changesets with more informative comments, and with sources listed. And possibly consider discussing with local mappers beforehand.

Thanks, J

Hi there Roadsguy ... I see you've been recalssifying some roads. What's your source for this info?

Hi hhsnow, I was mapping in the area and saw the ford you added here: node/7593178321

I don't see any evidence on satellite that the track in question ( way/20083789 ) still exists, and in fact the course of the West Kill seems to have shifted significantly as well.

Is there actually a track here, with a ford across the West Kill? I'm wondering because I suspect that possibly the original track was imported in error and that the ford may have been added to mollify a map editor warning about crossing roadway and waterway.

No worries -- I can't speak for the changes you made in NJ but I settled on highway=trunk for both the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges, since they're limited access but not exactly high speed (far from it.)

Cheers, J

People call the bus or the route Q20. The place for that info is the network or route_ref tag. Nobody calls the stop itself Q20, they say, to paraphrase you, "the Q20 stops here."

The stops have names. They're written on the poles and shelters, they're used in spoken announcements, and they're listed on the info screens of busses that are equipped with them. See links below.

https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=d45cfc75-34d4-4994-aa58-6bbdc571f816&cp=40.675199~-73.904969&lvl=19&dir=5.509607&pi=5.686858&style=x&mo=z.3.79&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=9341435c-e291-458b-b847-9a99c62d664e&cp=40.679581~-73.934695&lvl=19&dir=134.69557&pi=-6.6804805&style=x&mo=z.3.53&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qokzLwd38XE

Should the default OSM map render the bus routes at bus stops, instead of the stop names? Maybe so. Personally that's a change I wouldn't mind seeing. But it's no reason to put the data in incorrect fields. This is "tagging for the renderer" and it's against the basic principles of OSM.

If you want to suggest a change to the default OSM rendering of bus stop names, open an issue at the CartoCSS github page: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

Regarding the footways, if you could reply to my comment here that would keep the discussion cleaner: changeset/88000411

This isn't a matter of style or opinion -- NYC bus stops have names (mostly named after the intersection they're nearest) and those names go in the "name" tag. The names of the bus routes that stop there should be under the "network" tag (older tagging) or under the "route_ref" tag (newer tagging).

What you're doing is the same as naming a subway station "A" because the A train stops there. It's simply incorrect.

...While we're talking, can you explain all the deleted footways and service roads?

Hi Tylerchill, would you please stop changing the names of bus stops to match the names of the bus routes? This isn't correct, and several different people have politely advised you about this. Thanks, J

Hi Fluffy, wondering what definition you're using for trunk here. The wiki just says that hw=trunk is for "high performance or high importance roads that don't meet the requirement for motorway" and that the criteria vary from country to country, and within the USA from state to state.

Are you basing your changes on a different definition?

Hi there... you seem to have deleted lots of footways that I created, and as far as I can tell they're still real. Is this is mistake? Is there something I'm not understanding here?

HI foreverwild, I'm doing some trail mapping in the Catskills and was wondering what the source is for the name "Yellow Connector Trail" for way/426363924
Thanks, J

Ok thanks for getting back -- looks like it was fixed 8 months ago! Cheers

Hi ComBlOp -- I wonder if you've considered a slightly different style for mapping these parking lots. It's a little odd to see each of the clusters of parking spaces mapped as an individual amenity=parking. Generally one amenity=parking would be used for the entire parking lot. And in fact, some error-checking software will consider it a problem if an amenity=parking feature does not have a service road going through it.

Your attention to detail is impressive of course! If you really like mapping exactly which parts of the pavement are used for the parking spaces themselves, consider using amenity=parking for the parking lot but mapping each space individually using amenity=parking_space.

Cheer, J

Hi again solongago -- Can you elaborate on the data source for these landuse=residential boundaries?
way/824939434
way/824939449

Based on aerial imagery, they seem to contain a large amount of undeveloped swamp and woods, plus a large clear-cut powerline corridor.

Thanks... and welcome back after 11 years, I think you may have set the OSM hide-and-seek record!

Update -- I have reconnected the trail here after a message from solongago.

Thanks, great to see the new bridge is open. I connected the Boiceville parking area service road to the trail and added the missing parking areas. I also tried to standardize some of the tags across the various rail trail sections.

Howdy solongago -- I've been mapping in this area based on GPS traces from a hike last year. I had intended to check out the gap that currently exist in the Shawungunk Ridge Trail ( note/1889496 ) but took another route and wasn't able to survey.

It looks like this changeset from December 2018 is when that disconnection happened. Was this intentional? Is there actually a road closure here? (The Shawungunk Ridge Trail follows Shinhollow Road here, which is highway=track east of the railroad.)

Ok thanks -- I've split Prospect Hill Road and set the eastern part back to residential.

Btw, if the western part that connects to Cahoonzie Club Road is signed private, you might consider using "private" for the access instead of "permissive". Routing software generally treats "permissive" the same as public access and so will send public traffic over that road. Example: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=41.4476%2C-74.7016%3B41.4636%2C-74.6620#map=14/41.4521/-74.6730&layers=N

Hi jraber_us, thanks for adding this info.

It looks to me like the eastern portion of Prospect Hill Road is in fact a residential road with public access and many houses. I believe it would be appropriate to split the road at this intersection: node/222039749

And then set the eastern end back to residential. Does this sound correct?

Thanks, j