service=spur has been deprecated in favor of usage=branch

Something about the fire hydrants having addr:full=* tags doesn't quite pass the smell test, especially since there's buildings that have the same address.

If the hydrant literally has its own address, then that's valid, but in my experience I've never seen any American city assign fire hydrants addresses.

This definitely is named. There's apparently a local rule that requires private roads to be named and the owner happened to give this a very hilarious name. I personally spotted this street on the ground.

This definitely is named. There's apparently a local rule that requires private roads to be named and the owner happened to give this a very hilarious name. I personally spotted this street on the ground.

Sure, on relation/6370352, it doesn't appear to be a specific trail but a whole collection of trails. I'm not sure this really works as a route.

Probably don't need the route relation for this based on what is in the relation. Route relations are for objects that make a linear route, not a collection of random objects, and need to be made once per route type, not multiple route values on the same route relation.

If you can describe more about what you're going for that might help me get an idea on which way to go with this.

I will defer to your superior knowledge of military history on this one, I've restored the original spelling.

Well, congratulations, you've managed to systematically ruin every public transport relation in Tulsa by blindly importing a completely inaccurate GTFS file.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94504007

Thank you for blindly changing the order and membership of this relation without having any on the ground knowledge. This totally didn't wreck hours of hard work and make the map worse at all.

Each route should be its own relation, not all routes in a single relation.

These problably should be lcn or some other network, not rcn. Relations are not collections, putting all the trails as a single relation also isn't appropriate.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/92115889 where the changeset comment is: Please go to https://opengeofiction.net/ to create fictional geodata.

Hey, are these train relations for a passenger route? If not, these shouldn't be train relations.

When working with alignment, please be mindful of the placement=* tags as this indicates which lane the line runs down or between.

What's this - ??K stuff about? I don't understand what you're intending with that.

Right? Depressing.

In this case I was working on making sure OR 213 had a complete, contiguous relation.

names are not refs and don't qualify for the name tag.

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/63501/highway-naming-conventions
osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

I honestly don't think length comes into play here since it terminates with intersections on either end. If there was one more grade separated change, I think we'd be on the same page for this one.

Yeah, Rand McNally switched to using OSM 5-10 years ago instead of doing their own cartography. Probably the best source for printed OpenStreetMap in the US since then.

That said, I'd generally recommend avoiding making mapping decisions in OSM based off commercial maps due to copyright issues.

Doublechecked the name, looks like it got renamed in 2017 by the Kansas legislature. I'm disinclined to remove name=* on this for that reason.