tyfi's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 152654922 | Proof at https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=38.366703%7E-90.629484&lvl=22.0&pi=4.8&style=x&dir=60.5 |
|
| 152614326 | For High Hill, I made sure Route F connected as specified by the relevant MoDOT travelways because Booneslick Road is not state-maintained. I have seen errors in the travelway defs for interstate interchange connection before, e.g. another Route F over in Wright City where the travelway says it goes to I-70 but the signs clearly state where maintenance ends. MoDOT would generally want a fully state-maintained connection to the interstate, though, unless posted otherwise, so I followed the travelways here in connecting F through. |
|
| 152566709 | This also corrected an instance where Elm Street was called "Elms Street". This was from TIGER originally. |
|
| 152519926 | I left the classification alone at tertiary. Feel free to downgrade if you feel it's needed. |
|
| 152519926 | Looking back at TIGER suggests that maybe development in this area was associated with dropping Route P? I didn't dig too much into the details because I'm completely certain it doesn't exist now. |
|
| 152472344 | This changeset also upgraded way #1286318982 from tertiary_link to tertiary. Yes, it's technically a connector road, but it's functionally an extension of KK in my opinion. There's not even a stop sign for traffic on KK or this connector. |
|
| 152432774 | Imagery is not updated yet. The parking lot is gone. Please don't re-add it. |
|
| 152395867 | Looks like it was set to asphalt without checking the entire stretch for pavement. Part of it is indeed asphalt (part closer to US 183) |
|
| 152350674 | Thanks for catching this even after I closed the note. I only checked the intersection to the east before closing it. Missed the other half of N just to the west |
|
| 152199354 | Even if "registered" didn't mean incorporated, it still doesn't meet verifiability requirements IMO |
|
| 152182558 | There was a gap in 86. Signage is clearly visible on Bing Streetside indicating 86 occupies the same road as do U.S. 60 and MO 59. |
|
| 152180855 | This changeset also added some surface and lanes tags to affected roads which inflated the bounding box |
|
| 146012998 | I kept the part of T to the west of 54 as secondary, as it forms a bypass on Old 54. |
|
| 145978094 | For some reason, the northern terminus of Z was part of the Z relation but had no tag. |
|
| 145933764 | When making road surface gravel, or when adding bridges to gravel roads, make sure to verify the surfaces of bridges |
|
| 145931249 | Huh, I don't know why JOSM didn't autocomplete the source field. I used Bing Aerial Imagery and MoDOT's public domain travelway data from MSDIS. |
|
| 145905077 | I also moved it north of Chestnut Street because the GNIS import 15yrs ago had it wrongly placed. |
|
| 145904567 | I also bumped Route NN to tertiary since it connects to a 2-digit numbered state route and serves as a main street of Parnell. |
|
| 145862254 | This is motivated by the idea that you don't need to enter the asphalt road (which Route C follows) in order to, say, make a right turn from Throop Street onto Vanson Street. |
|
| 145861788 | I bumped the state route to tertiary out of habit, really, but I don't feel like unclassified is a good fit anyway. If it shouldn't be tertiary, just let me know |