I can't speak for anybody but myself but I think what you're doing is probably fine. I think StreetComplete is typically used for on-the-ground surveying (and I believe it automatically tags changesets with source=survey); one would typically use another editor for remote/armchair mapping an area using aerial imagery and/or local knowledge.

I hope you're enjoying your vacation. Safe travels, and happy mapping!

I can't speak for anybody but myself but I think what you're doing is probably fine. I think StreetComplete is typically used for on-the-ground surveying (and I believe it automatically tags changesets with source=survey); one would typically use another editor for remote/armchair mapping an area using aerial imagery and/or local knowledge.

I hope you're enjoying your vacation. Safe travels, and happy mapping!

Hi wombatpandaa,

In this changeset and a few others around the same time, it appears you are surveying Beijing using StreetComplete.

changeset/185093856
changeset/185093805
changeset/185093742

However, on the same day, during roughly the same time period as these changesets in Beijing, it appears you are using StreetComplete to survey in North Carolina.

changeset/185094847
changeset/185094851
changeset/185095036
changeset/185114074

You're not actually *surveying* in both locations, right?

Thank you for your work. Happy mapping!

Hi, I recently surveyed Olympic Boulevard and noticed that you mapped unmarked crossings going across 6 lanes of traffic. Based on survey, these are not dedicated crossings, but informal crossings; a daring pedestrian might try to cross, but these are not intended as crossings, and it is often unsafe to try to cross 6 lanes of fast traffic here, except at marked and/or signaled crossings.

I fixed the crossings at the intersection of Olympic and Masselin in this changeset: changeset/184440610

You can use this as an example to correct the other intersections.

Oh yeah, some ways got deleted during the revert too. I used streetside imagery to confirm the surfaces on some segments of sidewalk, e.g. way/1524104611/history

And I'd also added some crossings, which got deleted by the revert, e.g. way/1524104614/history

And traffic island curbs, e.g. way/1524104618/history

Sorry for the hassle

Hi cubbe8,

Thanks for your response; in the future, I'll use Mapbox for aligning with sidewalks and roads in this area. And thank you for adding the node data back to the curbs, stop signs, etc.

I understand that some time has passed since those aerial and streetside images were taken. If the changes that I made were out-of-date, I'd appreciate if your revert comment explained this reasoning, rather than simply saying "correction to alignments." As far as I can tell from 2025 imagery, the alignments I made and data I added were valid, so it would help me considerably to know if/when this 2025 imagery is obsolete.

For example, for these nodes, I added data that you can compare against the tagged mapillary images.

node/3841513805/history
node/3841552436/history
node/12032602052/history

Your revert deleted valid data from these nodes that was verified by relatively recent streetside imagery.

Hi cubbe8,

Why did you reverse this changeset? changeset/183315483

Your changeset comment says "correction to alignments" but in my changeset, I aligned sidewalks to MassGIS 2025 aerial imagery; your changeset reverted the sidewalk to a state where it no longer aligns with aerial imagery.

Furthermore, my changeset updated crossings, curbs, stop signs, etc. using not only MassGIS 2025 aerial imagery, but also Mapillary streetside imagery from 2025 onward. Your revert should not be deleting correct data from the map.

Wow, I didn't even notice I passed 10k edits!

Thank you for the advice on bus stops and transit shelters. I just added the data to the bus stops on Chapman and Western.

Hi CCu2, I noticed that you have continued to place surveillance nodes in the same area. Many of these nodes were placed directly on top of each other, and many had the direction=359 tag.
I deleted these nodes because they seem erroneous; see changeset/182474746

For anybody reading this comment in the future, also see the following.
changeset/182015132#c1589496
changeset/182021328
osm.org/user_blocks/20203

Hi, you've added ~80 surveillance nodes (mostly ALPRs) in the same small area over the past few days. All of them are tagged as pointing in the same direction (direction=359). I have my doubts about whether all of these nodes accurately reflect physical reality. Would you be able to provide additional information about these edits?

No worries, happy mapping!

You incorrectly changed the crossing:markings tags on multiple crossings. I noticed you used Bing imagery, which has a vintage of November 2022 in this area. If you check ESRI (which has a vintage of August 2025 in this area), you'll see that the crossings at the intersection of Glenarm and Los Robles have zebra markings, not lines.

Hello,

I apologize for any errors I've made. Feel free to revert or overwrite any mistakes, and let me if there's anything I can do to help fix the errors. I don't think I changed the sidewalk alignment much in this particular changeset, but as you've noted, I have made multiple changesets throughout the area over the past few days, some of which include changes to sidewalk/crossing alignment. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience my edits have caused, and thank you for informing me of my errors.

For future reference, what imagery should I have used in this area? I have made most of my edits by cross-referencing against multiple sources (MassGIS, ESRI, Mapbox, Bing). To my understanding, MassGIS and ESRI are older, while Mapbox and Bing seem more up to date in this area. I do recall using MassGIS for some sidewalk alignment because the images are from winter (when tree leaves aren't blocking the view), and I have used ESRI for determining tactile pavement at curbs (because the imagery is higher resolution than other sources), but I've been trying to check against the other sources. However, I realize now that I'm unaware of the subtleties. In this area, I'll defer to your expertise.

Thanks for the info! That's great to know, and I wish I knew that earlier. Moving forward, I'll be sure to check the NRHP when editing historic POIs

Hello, I'm somewhat new to OSM editing so I've been relying a lot on the wiki. I noticed that you changed the tag historic=building to historic=heritage. The wiki currently advises against using historic=heritage, but the article was last updated in 2023 so I'm not sure if it's still valid. historic=heritage

I'd previously changed the tag to historic=building because it was one of the values listed on the wiki historic=*

I'm sorry if I messed something up. OSM has become my hobby but I don't know the intricacies

I saw this in person and...I'm not sure what it is. But I don't think it's a surveillance camera.

Good for them