Danke!

Hi AJB1998 -- this looks like another import of medical facilities. It's an improvement over your previous changeset/61782997 because at least most of these nodes appear to land on buildings, and only one in the middle of the street:
node/5844929386

Based on these two nodes, which mark buildings that are already tagged on the map, it appears that you're not checking the current state of the map data, but rather importing blindly:
node/5844928986
node/5844928985

Again, there's no way to know where your data is coming from without source tags or comments, and these imports need to be discussed with the Imports mailing list beforehand. Please COMMUNICATE with your fellow mappers! And please spend some time cleaning up this data.

Thanks. The opening_hours, also, was something that I surveyed in person -- either from the door or the menu, I can't remember. I'm guessing yours is from the web site, but I think we should honor the info on the ground over what's posted on the web.

Hi -- wondering what your reasoning is for removing the amenity=cafe tag from
node/2573115164 -- I was at this location last week and it is, in fact, a cafe as well as a pastry shop.

User has not responded to personal message or changeset comment -- reverted in changeset/61830362

Hi AJB1998 -- This looks like a big import of EMS stations. But they've been added to the map 1) with no changeset comment 2) with no source tag and 3) with no prior discussion on the Imports mailing list. Also, many of the supposed EMS stations appear to be sitting between buildings:
node/5840685095
node/5840685092
Or sitting in the middle of roads:
node/5840685099
node/5840685098
node/5840700385
node/5840685097
node/5840700285
node/5840685094
node/5840683487
node/5840683487
node/5840685089
node/5840685087

Offhand it looks like there are more erroneous additions than valid ones. I'd like to recommend that you revert this changeset, or, if you prefer, I'm happy to do it for you. After that, please communicate with the Imports mailing list ( see osm.wiki/Mailing_lists ) to discuss correctly importing these items and any future data. Thanks, J

Thanks! (Btw I think I mapped your place today: node/1829661485 )

Hi homeslice, thanks for joining us -- I shouldn't have given up so quickly! And thanks for being clear about your goals and MO.
As I said, I've admired your sidewalks. But I hope I've also demonstrated the downside this mapping technique has on the pedestrian routing.
When sidewalks are fully mapped, of course, the pedestrian routing improves, and, as bhousel mentioned, it creates opportunities for detailed mapping of the sidewalk ways that may assist wheelchair users, etc. In the mean time, though, these islands with loose ends will break pedestrian and wheelchair routing for years to come. There are over 4000 intersections in Brooklyn, and a ballpark estimate is that it would be 6 or 7 years before you're done. Of course, the process may speed up as others chip in! But we're looking at years of broken routing nonetheless.
I'd ask you consider connecting the loose ends to the road network so the presence of the sidewalks does not negatively affect the routing.
Offhand I feel that capping the loose ends with the four-crosswalk way like I added at Fulton & Ashland is the best way to transition between a sidewalk-mapped block and its sidewalkless neighbors. And if it is in fact your goal to completely map the Brooklyn sidewalks, then it's something you'll want to do eventually anyway,
I'd love to hear other suggestions if you or anyone else has them, though, since I do a fair amount of this myself (connecting paths and sidewalks to the grid) and I want do what's in the best interest of the map.
Thanks again for joining us, J

Hah, thanks! So worried about getting the "ae" right that I flubbed the rest of the word!

Well I added my sample "cap" at the Fulton/Ashland place, changeset/61672263. If there's ever a consensus to purge these loose-end sidewalks that survives the edit wars, please feel free to get rid of that too -- it's only useful IMO as a fix to routing problem the loose ends cause.

Homeslice60148 has not responded to my invitation to join this discussion... Other than following homeslice around and patching the loose ends (which I'm not inclined to do) I don't think there's anything to be done about it, and the pedestrian routing will be damaged for the foreseeable.

(If I have too much coffee someday I might bring this up on one of the mailing list, with the aim of improving the Sidewalk_as_separate_way section of the wiki.)

J

Happy to hear it. And MikeN. by the way, I believe I misread what you meant by "end at the curb" -- yes indeed, the sidewalks themselves do literally end at the curb, crosswalks or no, and I can easily imagine a mapper choosing to map them in this literal fashion without realizing that it affects the routing.

BTW this changset (61631661) has been reverted by changeset/61662763 (restoring the deleted sidewalks), and the loose sidewalk ends have been tied into the street grid by changeset/61662897. This will improve the routing. It will still be a left and two rights to get from 691 Fulton to 239 Ashland Place, for instance, but I think we can all agree that it's an improvement over this:
https://imgur.com/50v4S2R
What I'd suggest as a standard would be this:
https://imgur.com/PZGVrHO
Routing would still have some little wiggles of course, no way to prevent that, but there'd be no real wrong turns or backtracking. (And I'll go ahead and upload this in a bit.)

I don't think these are being mapped this way because they stop at the curb -- there are clearly visible crosswalks at all of the hanging ends. I don't know whether homeslice60148 prefers to map this way or if it's part of the maproulette instructions (? I don't know how maproulette works. You, Mike, seem to have some experience though!) I messaged homeslice60148 regarding this changeset discussion, so maybe we'll see.
I don't think we're going to be able to come to any agreement on the sidewalks-as-ways issue anytime soon, but I do like the idea of basic guidelines for how the sidewalk ways should be tied into the street grid when they *are* mapped, to avoid routing problems.

These comments are not a personal attack and your defensiveness is uncalled for. I'm discussing the changeset. If you don't want to part of the changeset discussion, hit the "unsubscribe" button.

BTW here is a very silly example of screwed up pedestrian routing. (Wheelchair routing would have the same problem, I believe.)

osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=40.60721%2C-74.01134%3B40.60740%2C-74.01154#map=19/40.60770/-74.01090&layers=N

Personally I only map sidewalks when I perceive that it would improve routing, but I can easily imagine that at some point in the future mapping every sidewalk will be the norm. I'm not inclined to fight against this -- but I do want people to map responsibly, so that the map isn't less useful after their contributions than it was before. Maybe osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way needs some good idea/bad idea examples for how to tie mapped sidewalks into the existing street grid.

None of these #maproulette #Long_Island_traffic_lights_(Brooklyn,_Queens) sidewalks have any wheelchair or smoothness info. I've actually never seen any such info on sidewalks here. (I have seen sloped_curb=yes on some *road* intersections, but that's obsolete now.) Yes, it might be added someday, but it might be added someday via sidewalk:* tags on the road as well -- that's the very first example given in the Sidewalks wiki page. Doesn't seem "too cumbersome." Regardless, the state these are being left in is an active impediment to both pedestrian and wheelchair routing. It can't really be justified by saying "maybe someday someone will want to add wheelchair tags."

There are dozens of these around Brooklyn and Queens, all added by homeslice60148 and tagged with #maproulette and #Long_Island_traffic_lights_(Brooklyn,_Queens)

Aside from the facts that 1) they're generally not in places where sidewalk mapping makes any difference to pedestrian routing, and 2) they're left unconnected on the ends, so they're actively problematic for routing... they seem really well done. So I've left them alone, figuring it's a work in progress, and I've never tried to contact the mapper.

Do you think these should all be purged?

I have no experience with maproulette, but is this something that can be fixed or prevented from that end?

User did not respond to changeset comments or personal message. Reverted in changeset/61505468 to fix corrupted building geometry, POI node created for medical centre.

Reverted in changeset/61505468 to fix corrupted building geometry, POI node created for medical centre