OpenStreetMap
treestryder's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 159584851 | Copied from my earlier changeset comment. changeset/159287397 Welcome to OpenStreetMapping.
|
|
| 159287397 | Yes bicycling is legal on most Michigan "sidewalks". Ours might be better tagged as highway=path + surface=concrete + width=1. Most Michigan mappers only add bicycle=yes where it is needed to route someone where the road network will not. Like, a cut through between two neighborhoods. Another reason I do not do add bicycle=yet to sidewalks, besides limiting routing confusion when it would appear to the router as bicycling paths on either side of the road, plus the road itself, then some roads will also have bicycle lanes on that road; I hear that high speed cycling on sidewalks is statistically more dangerous. |
|
| 159287397 | Welcome to OpenStreetMapping.
|
|
| 139345117 | Are you going to fix this? It keeps coming up. inaccurately, in searches. |
|
| 140898363 | Thank you for the edit. Good to know there is access to the park there I have removed 'Clifford Park Enterance" from this path.
A name should only be added when it has a sign, or another official source.
Also, highway=path implies motor_vehicle=no. In fact, it is about all it means. |
|
| 137807555 | Found this standing in a parking lot here now. Trying to map an EV charger. I'll delete the restaurant. |
|
| 145312706 | It shows the entire area the edit affected. Down below, it lists the objects. affected Could click through the ways to see which was mentioned. Another option would be a tool that shows the edits graphically, like OsmCha.
By making smaller, more succinct edits, they would be easier to reference and discuss. If I had to guess, I would suspect they mean this, after the entire length of the trail was also labeled as a ford.
|
|
| 153245504 | Another example further north where the road narrows.
|
|
| 153245504 | I just drove through there and captured Mapillary imagery. Park Lake Road does not have bicycle lanes. Those are merely "fog lines". Inaccurately mapping it could get someone injured, with little recourse... as it is not a bicycle lane.
In Michigan, a legal bicycle lane must be:
You could measure and the shoulder widths. Without a measurement, the shoulder tag implies a vehicle could safely pull of the road.
|
|
| 153243828 | This ( way/484642093 ) was accurately mapped as a multi-use path. Only bicycles are allowed on a cycleway. Cycleways are very rare in our parts. In fact, most of our multi-use paths require cyclists yield to those on foot. See the section for mapping pedestrian infrastructure on the Michigan Wiki page.
|
|
| 155942352 | No apology needed. Only trying to help. Actually. I did not look at this edit very close. I only looked for latest to not have the parking areas connected to the ways, after seeing a few others. |
|
| 123441151 | This edit is two years old, but just in case, I wanted to point out highway=cycleway effectively means bicycle=designated. Ways that only allow bicycles are very rare, at least in Michigan. Probably all of North America.
|
|
| 155942352 | Thanks for all your work. When adding parking, be sure to connect the parking to the road network leading to it. Pretty sure iD normally alerts on parking being disconnected from the ways. For instance, here the driveway should run along the south side edge of the parking area, and the parking type would technically be street_side.
Then here, the parking lane should intersect with the surface parking area.
|
|
| 152005228 | Unless there really are signs that can be mapped, I have not found a mapping scheme currently developed for mapping MTB obstacles/elements. |
|
| 149094284 | My wife and I were in the area and stopped by. I am uploading Mapillary imagery that which shows there is only a small sign at the entrance of "The Dump" trail. The County's map shows the trail is within Stuart's Landing Park.
Property map shows it is sevaral parcels belonging to the City of Marshall.
The "The Dump" park should be removed. The real park should be expanded to match its full boundaries. A MTB trail relation should be created. The trail's name should be on its relation, not its segments. The sign could be mapped as its trailhead. Once the Mapillary imagery has processed, the photos could be used for adding details. |
|
| 149094284 | The park, trail, or both? |
|
| 152005228 | tourism=information + information=route_marker Is there really a sign with that name there? |
|
| 152005228 | ||
| 152005228 | Tourist attractions? 🤔 |
|
| 151365161 | Nice! Not only does that solve the access tag overload problem, but also avoids the canoe/kayak/sup/paddlecraft/etc nomenclature debate. I waited until it was clear on the Wiki, despite OsmAnd's excellent support for the whitewater community's narrowly focused tags, that canoe was thee generic term for paddlecraft and canoe=put_in;egress was how transitions between water and land were to be tagged. Then, in a frenzy of stolen time, created the OpenStreetBrowser paddling categories [1], converted Michigan whitewater tags to canoe, and added a note to the Michigan wiki's cheat sheet to help encourage consistency. Since the creation of the categories, I have seen many new route=canoe appearing in the U.S.. Not sure about canoe=put_in/egress. So… Is it time to add support for waterway=access_point to OpenStreetBrowser? Maybe make it function the same as canoe=put_in/egress. Leaving support for canoe=put_in/egress for a time. Any thoughts on tagging portages? Right now, the "Paddling Amenity" category highlights ways tagged canoe=portage. [1]
|