OpenStreetMap
CAM-Gerlach's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 154874348 | Ah gotcha—that makes more sense; I thought I might be missing some context. I couldn't see just from comparing those two changesets what was being restored relative to mine, except for possibly the relation, so I just assumed it must have been that. Thanks for the explanation and taking care of the fix! |
|
| 154874371 | Hey, so since it looks like you have quite a bit of experience mapping cycleways in OSM, I'd really appreciate your insight on the appropriate method of mapping cycleway or dual-use foot/cycleway crossings. Intuitively, tagging as `cycleway=crossing` seemed to make the most sense, as you've reverted to here. However, when I checked the wiki page for this tag, cycleway=crossing , it said: > This tag is only to be used in countries where cycle crossings have a legal status (for instance having right of way when an ordinary cycleway wouldn’t). My assumption from the examples presented and my understanding of cycling law in the US (versus Europe) was that this was not the case here, but upon further thought it seems I might have misunderstood and in fact this is appropriate after all, with cyclelists having right of way over cars at this junction without dismounting? Thanks!
|
|
| 154874348 | Hey, thanks—its not entirely clear from the OSMCha UI, but I'm guessing I accidently broke the Huckleberry Trail route relation here in my previous Southgate changeset? I usually try to be careful to not do so and ensure any split/combining of way segments preserve relations, but I guess I must have gotten a bit too complacent here trusting in JOSM to either do the right thing automatically or warn me if the situation was ambiguous, as it usually does.
|
|
| 150883788 | Thanks for the fixes! In the original change I was just typing the tags free-text into Rapid's text field, and for whatever reason I didn't catch it in my later pass with the JOSM validator, despite fixing another tag value on the same object.
|