When it only exists on paper and there's nothing else that really brings it up to the level of a proto-motorway trunk, it's effectively the same as tagging the interstates in Alaska as motorway. It's overstating the character of the road based on a purely political process for funding.

Either way you want to cut it, most of America isn't connected *that* well. Let's avoid aspirationally tagging the wishful thinking of the HFCS.

That's clearly not a trunk, buddy. Let's not encourage upward priority creep.

OK Karen. Calm down. landuse=residential is absolutely incorrect in this case and landuse=residential should be smaller areas that actually fit the land use.

landuse=residential is only appropriate for areas where homes and apartments are. It's not appropriate where public roads are, for example.

No, they're not mutually exclusive but given the neighborhoods where it did get retagged, landuse=anything isn't an appropriate value ever for those polygons. Literally zero of them are purely residential landuse.

That said, landuse=highway and government land use outside of prisons and military bases doesn't currently have a good tagging, so AFAICT the best practice for landuse tagging on public commons is to not tag it at all.

Suggested iterative improvement would be to make sure these polygons actually fit the actual neighborhood boundaries (they're close but obviously not fully inclusive), and then tag groups of lots congruent to the boundaries with landuse=*. Outside of very limited edge cases, if your landuse=* polygon is crossing a highway=* line that isn't access=private, it's probably wrong.

landuse=* is lot-level tagging, not district level. A named landuse=residential area should be an apartment complex or a gated subdivision at most. Otherwise you definitely have a lot of space that definitely should be landuse=highway in the middle at every publicly owned street.

Large landuse gaps on the map is more accurate than overly inclusive landuse areas, so changing landuse=residential areas in this space to boundary=administrative admin_level=10 and place=neighborhood is a more accurate definition.

I'm not arguing against tagging things as landuse=residential, but what got retagged isn't even remotely congruent with landuse=residential by the broadest possible definition.

TLDR: No.

Problem is there's a lot in the middle that isn't actually residential. Landuses should be congruent with the actual landuse, not entire districts.

45 km/h?? I mean, I'd love it if we got on board with standard units here already but I didn't think we had any metric speed limits here yet.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110620424

Isn't 44 through Lawton toll-free?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110509622

If it weren't a paid mapper, I would agree. For a paid mapper, c'mon man, spend the time to not slapdash through it and go for precision.

Really expecting a way higher attention to detail from paid mappers here.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109843870

Took a while to figure out what was going on here...maybe go for one airport at at time so it's easier to QA, please.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109366818

When bringing in buildings, it's generally expected you adjust the corners to match what's actually on the ground, not just import from MapWithAI.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109762582

Oh no problem! I definitely could have used the help when I was new and the map desperately needs someone actually local to metro OKC to help on that end.

landuse=retail is what you were looking for.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109642515

No problem! Glad to help!

Kinda sorta, on the stuff around OKC that is already tagged 25 MPH, you may need to remove or change source:maxspeed as most of the 25 MPH roads are tagged based on OKC's citywide speed limit.