Thank you! This information is very helpful!

If you're interested in learning more about OpenStreetMap, please feel free to reach out! OSM US also has a Slack that's very helpful if you have any mapping questions: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Once again thanks for your contributions, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Happy new year!

Yeah, OpenStreetMap uses British English in the tags, plus some tags weren't necessarily too well thought-out or future-proofed (I think nobody in the early days of OSM expected the project to get this big). So that means sometimes we get tag names (like highway=service) that can be pretty confusing if you're expecting it-- we all get tripped up sometimes :)

Thanks, happy new year!

Are these cameras distinct from the ones already mapped in this corner of the parking lot at node/13110844979? I.e. are there really 4 cameras in this corner, not just the two existing ones?

Thanks for the edit! This will take a bit (~1 week to 1 month) to show up in CoMaps (it takes the CoMaps project a bit to rebuild the updated data download).

hmm well the user has a fair point that this might also apply to the park. See my comment of the original changeset. We'll see what they say about what the situation is on the ground.

Thanks, happy mapping!

Thanks. Deleting the park is not correct, but if there is a sign or similar at this park that says something like "residents only" or "no trespassing," we can add access=private to the park and facilities here. Is there a sign to that effect here?

For more info, please see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability and osm.wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F#Why_am_I_getting_pushback? (that resource is specifically about private trails but some of its points apply here).

We want to do what we can to help make OpenStreetMap more accurate. Thank you for your interest in OSM and you patience as we work on this issue.

Was working on this. I think just adding access=private to the park and facilities would be correct? Assuming there is a sign to that effect on the ground. My guess is that this is a semi-gated neighborhood, where anybody *could* drive in and use this park, but it's strongly discouraged. I'll comment the changeset.

Thanks for all your edits recently, and welcome to OSM!

My only note on this edit is that we typically use +X-XXX-XXX-XXXX phone number format (at least in Washington State). So with a leading plus sign this should be +1-360-479-4440.

Happy holidays!

Awesome, thanks! Pierce County actually has some address data that's allowed for use in OSM, so I'm seeing what I can do to add some addresses around here on a medium scale. Very much a learning experience for me as well. But now the south end of 174th Ave has addresses!

Happy holidays!

Thanks, where did you get this data?

Oops, I mis-clicked in JOSM and uploaded by accident! But this changeset adds a couple missing buildings on Lake Tapps Island A.

Thanks. Yeah, all the media attention about Flock cameras recently has led to an influx of things mapped as ALPRs that really are just regular traffic cameras, or other non-surveillance infrastructure. Thank you for helping to clean that up!

I see that this is your first edit: Welcome to OpenStreetMap! We're always glad to have another local person interested in the project :)

OSM can have a bit of a learning curve, so please feel free to reach out anytime. I've found that a great resource is the OSM US Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/), where you can ask questions and discuss with other local mappers.

Happy holidays!

Thanks! Yeah, It looks like address coverage is minimal in this area, so this is helpful. If you're interested and use Android, [StreetComplete](https://streetcomplete.app/) is pretty good and lets you add addresses and much more in a simple, user-friendly way.

But thanks for this edit, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Please let me know if you have any questions.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Not sure exactly how this should be. But I thought the single white line was just a lane marker? I read the dotted line as "warning, exit only ahead" and the solid single white line as "exit only imminent, avoid changing lanes here", and the split of the lines (could be considered a double white line) as "definitely don't cross here." Not sure if my understanding of the lines is correct, but I see that single white line that changes dotted > solid just before Harbor Island exit as only a warning of an imminent split and discouraged lane change, but not an actual split of the exit yet.

Again, I'm not super familiar with how to map this situation, but consider as a reference the I-90 exit to Rainier south: node/1388977594 (you can hit "edit" to see the aerial imagery under the data). There's a solid white line for a while (after the dotted line "warning"), but the exit ramp doesn't actually split off until the single white line splits into a triangle.

So I guess my question is, is a solid white line really the start of the split even before the triangle? And then, for your Tesla, shouldn't it already be in the exit only lane heading towards west seattle bridge? Or is it not lane-aware, or not using lane data in OSM (as far as I can tell the turn:lanes=* and destination:lanes=* are correct on the lead-up to the exits).

Thanks for the details. I'm not an expert here either, so I'm happy to be working through it with you.

Thanks for this. These ramps used to be mapped the way you described, but I thought (based on aerial imagery) that these lanes were reconfigured. The way I'm seeing these lanes, there's an exit only lane for a while, and then there's a normal exit (i.e. not forced by exit only lane) out of that exit only lane--that's the first ramp off 99, heading to harbor island. Then, a little later, that exit only lane feeds into a new exit, that dumps into west seattle bridge.

So that's what I changed it to last month in changeset/174749238. Did I accidentally use old imagery and update to the previous configuration? Are you using imagery or (recent) personal experience to describe the current configuration?

Thanks again for working on this--data accuracy is important!--and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Ahh, of course! 🤦‍♂️ Thanks for clarifying

Happy mapping!

Hey, thanks for the edit. But why did you tag way/1118510963 as a one way only road?

Sorry, I'm not sure what your changeset comment means. Is "lu" a region? What type of edits did you make? Please explain :)

thanks

Yes, I reverted it, see linked changeset. But @defikarte is a service account for https://defikarte.ch/, which could use some tighter data validation such as a maximum move distance.

Thanks for the business details. You left this tagged as a flooring shop, so I updated it. I know Organic Maps' editor isn't the most flexible, so no problem :)