Slightly more specific text from https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/trafrule.pdf --

(i) Marked crosswalk. The term “marked crosswalk” means that part of a roadway defined
by two parallel lines or highlighted by a pattern of lines (perpendicular, parallel or diagonal
used either separately or in combination) that is intended to guide pedestrians into proper
crossing paths.
(ii) Unmarked crosswalk. The term “unmarked crosswalk” means that part of a roadway,
other than a marked crosswalk, that is included within the extensions of the sidewalk lines
between opposite sides of the roadway at an intersection, provided that (A) the roadway
crosses through the intersection rather than ending at the intersection, and/or (B) all traffic
on the opposing roadway is controlled by a traffic control device.

The way I'm reading this, an "unmarked crossing" is valid (curb ramps or no) if all of the following conditions are met:
a) There are no crosswalk markings.
b) It's at a "+" intersection, not at "T" intersection.
c) The sidewalk continues on the other side of the intersection.
d) The intersection features a stop light or stop sign controlling traffic on the road being crossed.

Offhand I'd say this is a much saner definition than the one in https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/hwyrules.pdf ... and on closer reading the context there is newsrack regulations, not pedestrian traffic.

`"Crosswalk" shall mean that part of a roadway, whether marked or unmarked, which is included within the extension of the sidewalk lines between opposite sides of the roadway at an intersection`

Per https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/hwyrules.pdf , that's what NYC DOT thinks. Crosswalks don't require markings or curb-cut ramps. They don't even *follow* the markings or ramp cutouts -- they follow the line of the sidewalk.

Howdy... I surveyed node/9927736652 and there's nothing of the sort there. (An unlikely place for it, to boot.)

I'm not sure what your data source is for these, but maybe check if this place still exists. If so, maybe the correct location should be in this building in Manhattan, which has other medical practitioners in it:
way/249847709

See amenity=dancing_school ... the wiki, unfortunately, is not consistent at the moment.

A place where people dance socially, as a leisure activity, can be accurately tagged leisure=dance. And if that place also offers lessons, then tagging leisure=dance + dance:teaching=yes is likely better than tagging amenity=dancing_school. These places do exist; here's one you fixed correctly: node/5744528976

A place where people do *not* gather to dance socially cannot be tagged leisure=dance. That would be troll tagging. ( osm.wiki/Trolltag )

iD's suggested "upgrades" are not correct in all cases. They should only be used on an individual basis, after investigating the feature in question.

In my very best leisure suit!🕺If I'd worn my tutu they might've let me in ;)

Hello epc5427 -- Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I've reverted this changeset and the subsequent (changeset changeset/132381679) because these changes to the map don't seem to be based on real-world data.

Please be aware that OSM is a real map used by millions of real people. Its accuracy depends on the efforts of volunteers across the globe, working hard to keep it up to date. Imaginary information does not have a place here.

In the future, please edit the map based only on data you personally know to be true.

Thanks, Jmapb

reverted (along with 132380794) in changeset/132389585, see comments in changeset/132380794

Thanks, I have some reading to do...

Has this been publicly discussed and documented anywhere? Standard OSM practice is to add different names in separate tags rather than using semicolon delimiters in `name=`.

Note that this sadly-now-deleted user_6771650 was the mapper who originally appended the Yiddish name under `name=` in changeset/89997354, then added a language-specific `name:yi` tag in changeset/89997391. This looks less like vandalism and more like a mapper with local knowledge learning how to tag correctly over time.

Howdy... I took a peek at this place yesterday and I really don't think the East 21st side should get an address at all. There was an entrance there, but it's padlocked shut with a metal grate welded over it, and the fence gate in front of that is chained shut as well.

I think you're right that this is all a single building now. I've joined the two sides and removed the 138 East 21st address.

Cheers, J

I'm not convinced of the wisdom of adding all of these tiny dual carriageway sections just to draw the traffic islands. The islands can be mapped as nodes, which might not be as satisfying from a micromapping point of view but is less error-prone, easier to draw, comprehend, and maintain.

That said, in situations where a dual carriageway is necessary, please make sure to consider the routing implications where the dual ways merge into the single way. They will nearly always need a "only_straight_on" restriction like relation/14113975 to prevent using the junction for u-turns. This is especially important in intersections like this one that forbid left turns -- currently OSM is recommending something very illegal: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=40.68373%2C-73.97661%3B40.68345%2C-73.97700

Thanks, J

Thanks. I marked it access=private based on the map at https://nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/maps/worthington-area.pdf

Do you know if the situation is the same on these three unmaintained trails, which are not on private property?
way/802758925
way/802758926
way/802759884

Apologies for the late followup... after seeing no action from Lyft on reverting these landuses, I did the reversions last month in the following changesets, one per borough: 129445164, 129446460, 129450557, 129451968, and 129456834. I left in place some landuses that had already been fixed by local mappers (in Staten Island, IIRC)

Hello WSfsupt, I'm doing some trail mapping and have some questions about the trails you've closed in Worthington, can I ask you here?

Thanks, J

Hi jgroth, is this old trail section legally closed (hiking prohibited), or just unmaintained and overgrown?

Thanks, do you recall where this imagery is from?

Thanks, is this signage that you surveyed or from groundlevel imagery?

HI snake21 aka SH17... what's the source for your changes in this area? I can see you're using Bing aerial imagery, but what about the access values and speed limits?

Hi Edward -- you tagged the node node/357581770 with wikidata item Q34855962 but this park already has Q7304317 (tagged on relation/13920588 ). Can you merge Q34855962 into Q7304317?

Thanks, Jason