Thanks. It's currently mapped as a foot path (with bikes allowed), not as a road. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks for updating this! Names are not used to describe features in OpenStreetMap. That is, a name=* in OpenStreetMap would usually be what's written on the sign outside. I removed the name tag from this building.

See osm.wiki/Names or reach out if you have any questions. Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Wow. Apparently possibly we do leave them abbreviated. That's kind of crazy. Thanks for pushing back on my comment; now I know.

Happy mapping!

I think so but will ask. I would have assumed GTFS Janitor takes that into account

Thanks. Is this the office location? If so, why is the position marked outside a building? Can you move the POI point to the accurate location?

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

The names should be expanded, e.g. NE should be Northeast. osm.wiki/Abbreviations

Thanks!

Thanks. Does it connect all the way through? That is, can you walk between 165th and 154th as a pedestrian?

@misty870808: Please *stop* making changesets until you have responded to my question at changeset/185881839#c1627905

If you are having technical difficulties doing that, please contact support@openstreetmap.org for assistance, and ask them to notify me (@pwbriggs/) as well.

I have submitted a report to the site administrators regarding your potentially-suspicious editing behavior and lack of response to my multiple attempts to contact you.

Thanks!

Yes, highway=path is kind of a strange tag. I think it's supposed to be always paired with access tags that describe what modes of transport are allowed to use it (and thus, in a sense, what kind of "path" it really is). I think highway=track is probably good here as well, though I'm not familiar with this place.

Thanks for confirming.

Roads shouldn't be deleted just because they're private. You may find some sections of osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property useful.

That said, based on aerial imagery from recent years, it looks like, along with the destruction of the building that was here, the road got overgrown with grass to some degree.

Is the road still currently present on the ground? If so, I can help you apply the correct tags to this doesn't get added back incorrectly by another mapper. If the road is gone on-the-ground, deleting it is okay (albeit potentially confusing to other mappers).

Thanks!

Hello again,

I left a comment on a similar changeset of yours, changeset/185881839, but you haven't gotten back to me before making this edit. Could you please respond to that question?

Thanks!

Spelling correction: "As a *side note". Thanks.

> Re the local community, I am in the community so I know full well how it should be tagged.

Yes, apologies, I see you on OSMUS Slack. I though I glanced at a possibly relevant discussion on there recently, but now I can't find it. Am I imagining it, or can you point me to the discussion about road classification? Thanks.

> As for the service road/driveway issue, in my work area, we are tagging any "highway" that leads off of a road into a residence or business as a driveway because the software we use sees a potential road as a path to route our vehicles. We DO NOT want that to occur.

I appreciate that, but this still feels like its primarily a limitation in the software you use, not an issue that should be worked around using non-standard mapping practices.

> I understand the naming convention generally used elsewhere, but this doesn't affect too many users comparatively.

I'm not sure what this means. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that it's good to bend the rules of the tagging conventions here because your particular router is more important than the consensus? I don't know why the wiki-documented convention is to have no service=* tag on parking lot access roads, but I feel like changing that would be unpopular with other mappers.

> We appreciate your understanding.

No problem. And I apologize if my initial message sounded too aggressive. I (wrongly) assumed that this was blatant vandalism for the purpose of tweaking a router. I should have approached giving you more benefit of the doubt.

As a site note, who is "we"? Are you part of some kind of organized editing group? If so are you on osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities? My question is as much out of personal curiosity as it is about assurance of correct procedure.

> Do you have anything else about the closed road matter?

I left a comment at changeset/185767080 with the construction link because they seemed to think the road was open. Maybe they didn't know about the project 🤷

Thanks for the continued discussion!

The other contributor has provided this link which describes a construction project closing the road here: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/6701/S-Machias-Rd---Snohomish-2026. I agree that the road was mapped in a confusing way because it marked the road as private rather than as under construction; now one segment of it has been updated to reflect that the road is in fact under construction.

Thanks again for your contributions! Let me know if you have anything to add to this discussion. Happy mapping!

Ugh, that's annoying that they stopped maintaining their website. Thanks for catching that and cleaning it up.

OpenStreetMap-wise, I think a better tag for their Instagram handle is contact:instagram=*, since it's not really their own website. I'll move the link you provided to that tag.

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Your edit looks good; thanks for the contribution and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I love the way you described the trail BTW, I'm still chuckling at "very earthy and it immerses the trail-goer" 😂

Hello @misty870808!

What do you mean by "verified NAP"? could you share more details about this data source?

Thanks!

Hi Jeff! Thanks for the contribution, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Re: highway=service — do you agree that the wiki page I linked above (service=driveway#:~:text=When%20not%20to%20use) says that service=driveway is not correct on parking lot entrances? I could be misinterpreting the wiki regarding the established norm. Otherwise, that sounds like an issue with the routing software, not a data issue in OpenStreetMap. If you're comfortable sharing, what routing software is this and what issue does it have when parking lot entrances are tagged without service=*?

Re: reclassifying the rural minor arterial to highway=tertiary, I'd ask the local community first whether Snohomish's rural minor arterial classification maps better to tertiary. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ or https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 are good places to discuss this.