A couple simple reminders: owner=* and operator=* tags can show proper rail ownership. An operator tag can show multiple operators, example, operator=BNSF;UP

Also, please don't prefix subdivision names with the operator, this is simply wrong. So the correct name is "Emporia Subdivision" not "BNSF Emporia Subdivision."

OSM's "Southern Transcon" relation (4673773) is correct in that it contains the correct 11 subdivisions. However, OSM data are "broken" in Kansas City between the eastern end of Emporia Subdivision at Santa Fe Junction and Congo Jct. at the west end of Marceline Subdivision. It appears that "Kansas City Terminal RR" (including the "Sheffield Flyover" and "Argentine Connection 2") are part of the missing gap (about 15 km). Rail is quite complicated in Kansas City. Please help fix this!

Great; thanks for the "ferry fix" (es).

I literally just finished a lengthy email to Kerry Irons (ACA) about how the 5-mile "USBR 10 SPUR" (intended to serve as a multi-modal bike/rail connection) was in WSDOT's 2014 USBR 10 AASHTO application (and it was approved, of course), yet that "spur" now seems superfluous with a significant of 2017's USBR 95 essentially superseding it. Kerry says he'll "dig into it" with WSDOT, as it may be as simple as an oversight on their part that they didn't delete the 5 miles of USBR 10 (even route number, so N-S, doesn't make sense) when they now have USBR 95 (odd-numbered, so perfectly sensible as N-S). Trouble is, the alignments don't perfectly match up, so some minor realignments will likely happen inside of WSDOT.

I think we'll get there: Washington state has been a pioneer with the USBRS and they do put erasers on the ends of pencils for very good reason: there is no shame in scrubbing away a little goof and improving things. It might take a year or two, but I think the right wheels are in motion and ears are being whispered into that "Mt. Vernon bicycle routing with USBR 10, USBR 95 and BR 14 at the state/regional level need a bit of tender loving care to make a bit more routing sense."

As always, thanks for the good mapping and good communication.

Minor changes edited.

Bill: Many watch what you do northerly along the coast.

Please make these changes (though by no means is this list exhaustive):

On relation/7530067 there is path 8531834 with wrong tags. Better tags on this object:

cycle:network=US:DOD:MCBC Pendleton
network=lcn

This is not part of the USBRS, though someday it might be, who knows.

On relation/8531834, this also is not part of the USBRS, but it's cycle:network tags make it look that way. I suggest the same tags on this object:

cycle:network=US:DOD:MCBC Pendleton
network=lcn

Please also remove the ref= tag as it is most certainly not USBR 95 (yet, who knows, perhaps parts of it will be, someday...).

So, I think you've done some good work entering interesting bicycle route elements here, let's get their tags correct (as of now). Tomorrow if they get pulled into a larger route, we have the tags to tag for those.

Please see our national bike wikis.

Thanks,
Steve A
California

Not to mention we are pretty long in the tooth (months, not weeks or days) for Andy to update OCM in North America. I've done my usual polite cajoling, it shouldn't be too long before we get some fresh tile updates. If you're reading, Andy, thanks in advance! Have fun exploring, Clifford. -SteveA

Thanks; I had a funky edit buffer with an error. It appears that USBR 10 and USBR 95 were conflated, as if 10 had a N-S spur to/through Mount Vernon, but I don't think it does, that segment is actually 95.

So, now, 10 is "pretty much E-W" (without a N-S Mt. Vernon 'spur') and 95 is "pretty much N-S" as it should be.

It couldn't hurt to verify the relations, though I have and all seems OK. But a second set of eyes is appreciated!

Just all wrong, check what's there, first!

I don't understand what these ways are, I don't understand how they are tagged.

Yes, these ways have no tag which will cause them to render (for example, highway=path, chosen because you include a surface= tag, which is insufficient to render). Please take a look at our wiki and how to tag, as suggested above.

Nice job cleaning up this area!

A very good suggestion! I've now added a Note with the same text; thank you. SteveA

Hi Nate:

As you say you have some local knowledge here, is there any of whether CORP has multiple subdivisions (one might be named Siskiyou, and only be in California, I'm not sure) or whether it's "one medium-long Class II railway" (and named a single thing) in both states? I'd like to express name tags and relation elements as best we might.

Thanks, SteveA

Nice work!

A few more things: the "building" denoted by way/563749459 (and similar ones nearby) seem likes it wants to denote a fence. For that, tag a way (not a skinny polygon like you have here) with barrier=fence. These can "link together" (if they do in real life) so you can get pretty complex sets of ways that are connected by nodes (with T-intersection triplexes or quad-intersection quadruples at the "square" of four houses having a common fence "corner.")

I would like to ask you to simply delete that "shading installation" as it isn't really a building as it is tagged, and it is extremely unusual for such a small (micro-mapped) object to find its way into OSM. Up to you, but it simply seems wrong to me to put this in. Other micro-mapping you have done (like the fire pit and fences, once you change them to barrier) are good mapping and (imo) should stay in the map, once their tags are corrected.

Keep up this work, there is nothing wrong with improvement along a learning curve, and everybody has their own learning curve!

SteveA

Very quickly, no you don't HAVE to add an address to a house. But, look at our wiki page for "building" and you'll see that "building=yes" is generic, and if you KNOW that the building is a house, "building=house" is a better tag.

Also, whatever that series of a dozen 7' x 1' buildings that are a foot apart is simply weird. While it might be "something" it isn't tagged correctly, (no name, "yes" is generic...). What IS this structure, anyway?!

Much better (attitude).

When you say "knew of the search feature," that's good, it means that you are using our wiki to see how to properly tag. You must do this, and I suggest that you "take small steps" with features that you know quite well (houses, parks in your neighborhood, straightening out streets that might be crooked from the TIGER import, adding sidewalks, what about that speed bump near that one house -- have you figured out how to tag that yet? OSM does have a way to tag all of these things and you can learn them and map them. Pace yourself. Learn a few things each day and map a few things each day. See how the map renders them after a while. See how the community reacts to your edits (not mean, or throwing rocks at you, or saying you are arrogant or you messed up...it gets better if you make mistakes and then truly do wish to do well).

Take your time. Treat the map like something that will be here next year, into the 2020s, into the 2050s and beyond: we really are mapping for the far future here, and that starts with making an EXCELLENT map today.

I'm going out to dinner with some friends and so I can't be so interactive with you like this tonight any longer. But please feel free to "missive" me by clicking on my name stevea and you can send me a message with OSM's built in "missive" service. Bye for now. Steve

Changing your username is a distinct sign that you are trying to be disingenuous with your identity. In a project like this, the "currency" with which we both establish and assert our facility with the map is measured in experience, years (or months, if you show skill) and a willingness to listen, learn and show others (like me and many others watching you and this discussion) that you wish to contribute in a harmonious and exemplary fashion.

While we do offer lots of encouragement and a bit of learning curve time for beginners, we also watch people when they show signs of arrogance, unwillingness or obstinacy. You are walking a very fine line of that right now, which is why I say "yellow alert." It might even be orange or red, if we are using such color-coding.

It is not that the micro mapping PER SE is inappropriate, it is your attitude that you would jump into our map crying "sex offender!" and get a lot wrong (foot-apart buildings, that's simply whack...) swimming pools as lakes and streams as rivers. Do you know how to read our wiki? Do you know how to follow directions and map as others map? Do your buildings have names the way that we name them (if a house, building=house, name=Howard's End if it doesn't have an address, for example, or how to use our addr: tagging scheme.

You simply seem as if you wish to map the way YOU want to map rather than the way that OSM wants you to map. Take a step back that you have elected to join a project with rules and that it appears to many that you are running roughshod over them with your attitude and mapping. In short, shape up or ship out. Plenty of other people "figure it out" (read the wiki, follow directions, find others who can help you map better if you have questions, be nice, try to not have an attitude of arrogance and "why is that any of your business...") and you might do well in OSM. But the way you are going, you'll need to seriously readjust your attitude, or others will simply redact your edits as noise.

We believe in high-quality mapping here, and when we see otherwise, we both say something and do something about it.

Before we get to that, please explain why you used to use the username ivan999 and now you use RubikCubical. That seems disingenuous and doesn't endear you to the good graces of this project. Yellow alert to you.

Something ridiculous is going on here, ivan999. There are many people watching what you are doing and you may be asked to leave our project unless you map according to our principles. Your behavior is noted.

For example, the series of buildings at the house immediately to the left of the speed bump (will you add a traffic_calming=speed_bump tag here) are simply ridiculous and should not be tagged like that nor exist as buildings in the map. That looks like you have built several retaining walls a few centimeters apart, and that is foolish, low-quality twaddle in this map. It is noise.

If you want to map well here (in OSM) read our wiki (more), watch what others do and start by better emulating us and grow into the methods by which we do things. If you have something "new" to add, there are better ways to do that.