Last thought - or is it that they're regularly using your driveway to perform a U-turn to go back out to Venice Blvd?

Hi @bookjenny,

I was looking at this again, because it felt like we missed something - Glendon still shouldn't be marked as private, but someone else had found your post on Google Maps about drivers cutting through driveways 3746 Glendon Ave, 3744 Glendon Ave, and 3740 Glendon Ave. I don't see driveways for those locations mapped here or in Google Maps, or in a few other private map providers who may sell data to delivery companies. But it got me wondering if there's another way data from these maps can signal drivers should not cut through.

Looking at imagery, I'm wondering if there's a connection through your property in the driveways that drivers are using to get around the one-way segment of McCune Avenue (i.e. going northbound on Glendon, they want to turn right on McCune, but can't, so something routes them through your driveways). Is that what's happening? If so, we can try to help figure out a way to signal they can't do that, though the map *currently* does not allow that either

Just noting I 100% agree on when access=destination is appropriate, but wanted to mention it since it's the closest I can imagine to how OSM would model the real situation - but realistically that requires something to indicate it or enforce it.

I did some research and speed limit tagging nearby in this changeset - changeset/186156003 - I tagged the default speed limits explicitly so that routers wouldn't make other assumptions and then researched a bit about the speed limits on Overland Ave. I can't find anything remotely about the speed limit on the closest segment, but it looks like north and south of here, it gets to be 35 mph. Hopefully all of this additional information will help a router make better decisions after updating the data.

Another OSM user here (but can vouch that willkmis knows these things better than I do).

I wouldn't think highway=service is appropriate here, but there may be other ways to indicate to through traffic that it's not advisable to use the road. One way would be to explicitly set speed limits on the road an any nearby roads that a routing engine might be using your street to avoid. If there are turn restrictions at intersections nearby, etc, adding them to reflect the reality in your neighborhood may help re-weight the delivery truck algorithms.

If your street has a "no through traffic" sign, then `access=destination` would keep it as a residential street, but convey that you only use the road if you're headed to a property along it - that also avoids the issues *receiving* deliveries, or having other tools route visitors correctly. But it might cause side effects on Francis Place and McCune Avenue.

Are the trucks coming from one direction? Or bidirectional. I'm wondering if some algorithm thinks this is better than making a left turn at Venice and Overland? But if the truck traffic is both ways, then it may be something else.

Hi Sarya, just wanted to say thank you for also tagging your imagery source! I had added the POI and some of the mapillary data on the ground here previously, but didn't have a good aerial source to add the roads. Really helpful to have you add it and tag your imagery as Vexcel. Thank you!

Adding in that someone in Cambria who wants to go to Monterey would definitely go along US 101 rather than highway 1, unless they wanted to take the scenic route. It's not trunk. I've made this exact decision many times.

I'll chime in as someone who was a third party to the initial discussion then.

First, I know it's really hard to read anything where the message is "you did this incorrectly and it needs to be removed". I personally struggle with that. And also, I read the initial thread and could see how much b-jazz was trying to find you solutions - offering alternative tagging, or suggesting that your app calculate the distances itself (which is what I'd say the right answer would be here based on how other data consumers use OSM).

Regarding the Data Working Group and the "middle school mentality" - that's a big leap and assumption. The Data Working Group resolves disputes and protects the database. They deal both with bot-scale attacks trying to damage the database, and new mappers who need a moment to pause and work with the community. b-jazz was saying that if they agreed with you, then you'd be allowed to keep doing it - they're not friends who will blindly back each other up. The response you got from the Data Working Group was because the community by and large agrees that what you're doing isn't right for the map and it'd be good for you to pause and come talk with us.

And then the "whole thread of people ridiculing everything I had done" - I honestly see how it looks that way and am sorry that was your welcome to the community. That's crappy and bad on our side. People regularly ask in there "hey, I think this is wrong, do you all agree?" and sometimes get told "no, it's OK" and sometimes there's a pile of people agreeing. That happened here. Toward the end there are a few jokes - one was mine, and I'm sorry. I'd like to explain, because those jokes were about the people in that thread, not about you or your work. Someone mentioned a rangefinder. I replied to them about a desktop GIS because *they* are a product manager for desktop GIS. Then someone replied "funny way to spell JOSM", because that's their favorite desktop mapping tool. It's a bit flippant, but I want you to know it wasn't at your expense - regardless, I'm sorry that it was part of what you saw when you arrived. I never want to be part of making someone feel unwelcome.

There are multiple replies in that thread welcoming you now. There are people who would like to work together with you, who care both about the golf data and the database as a whole. Even if you choose not to come back there, I hope we can get away from what happened before either here in the changeset comments, or in Slack, and understand that you want a better golf map, and so do b-jazz and GA_Kevin. I think you'll find them as good partners, even if the initial introduction was hard. I *know* they're ready to work with you if you're ready to work together too.

Well put. The world is complicated and ATYL is important. In a prior dispute, someone summed it up as "ATYL isn't a license to create confusion", which is what unilaterally changing the definition of this tag looks like. I agree that you'd be more likely to receive welcoming feedback if you use a new tag for this new meaning and not an existing one.

Hey Steve - I'm deferring to you because I know this is your region of expertise, but I'm looking at the ruins in the bottom corner of this changeset right now and imagery and survey seem to indicate there's a structure there now. Are the ruins still appropriate for that spot? Thanks!

Noting that from on the ground, I shortened the extension of the sidewalk on the right side of Muir Way - you can see a bit of it in street-level imagery, but it's not usable very far base the line with the cemetery. Thanks for working on sidewalks in the area!

@CRCulver - can you point to where this tag was deprecated? I'm not seeing any consensus that the tag should be deprecated anywhere. The wiki still lists the tag at crossing=unmarked and ID Tagging Schema still offers a present for the tag https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/blob/main/data%2Fpresets%2Fhighway%2Fcrossing%2Funmarked.json

Just wanted to say that I always see your edits in Sacramento, and came across this changeset while looking for something else. I appreciate all the work you put in to make the map better!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168680547

Just wanted to say that I always see your edits in Sacramento, and came across this changeset while looking for something else. I appreciate all the work you put in to make the map better!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168680547

As a note, it's OK for the trees to be individually mapped, even if the forest polygon is mapped.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168679640

Hi there - I'm undoing the deletions of sidewalks you made in this changeset because they are correct and more comprehensive than what you redrew in their place. My own local experience, street level imagery, and aerials all confirm them to be correct. Is there a reason you deleted them? It looks like you redrew part of them (which is also not preferred by the OSM community - it'd be better to modify the existing ones to preserve their history). Thanks!

changeset/160959719

Hi there, it looks like you're downgrading the status of numerous cities in the United States. In OpenStreetMap, changes of this magnitude should be discussed with the community first. Some of us are discussing these changes in the OpenStreetMap US Slack (https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/), but the community forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org is another great choice for these discussions. I'll also direct others here so you can reply in this thread any anyone concerned can see.

I'll note that most of your changes are against the community consensus and will probably be reverted. To start with, could you share what information you used when deciding to downgrade Scottsdale to place=town?

Thanks, and welcome to OSM! We'd love to see you in those community discussions!

As a note to anyone reviewing these upgrades in the future, I also think D street from McKinley to at least 45th, if not further, has features consistent with a tertiary, but it's narrower and probably has lower traffic, so I didn't upgrade it.

Similarly, 45th from about Bertha Henschel Park to J is very tertiary-like, but probably lower traffic than some of these others and serves less cross-neighborhood traffic and more funneling of people to H and J, so I didn't upgrade them yet.

It's also possible that 39th from McKinley to H isn't quite tertiary, but the rest of it is and I thought it made sense to connect the route through to at least McKinley.

Last, if one were to upgrade those, I think Elvas would probably than be secondary along its length. It might be anyway, but it's a much higher class than the rest of those and much more similar to H than it is the neighborhood through routes. For now, leaving as is to not overclassify the neighborhood.

Noting that I'm reverting my own changeset here - see new changeset comment

changeset/143446942

Hi there - thanks for all of your recent contributions. As a note, it's very helpful to your fellow mappers if you provide more detailed changeset comments. Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142996568

whoops, and sorry for vague language on my part. To clarify - was it removed from OSM based on a survey? And then at the end of my post, I was trying to say that it sounds like the bridge used to exist, but doesn't anymore. Thanks!