Hi, thanks for being open to discussion, and sorry for the delay in replying. I suppose my question would be, who is taking this road in order for it to be considered a trunk route, that is, one of the main routes in the state's road network? What destinations does it serve that merit this importance? If it connects some of the suburbs to central area, I think that's sufficient, but it looks like it just heads into farmland, near towns like Sanger, and eventually the mountains, which seems more like a highway=primary to me. But I assume you're local (given your username ;)), so you might have some insight into local use patterns that I do not. What the guidelines mostly try to steer away from is just tagging a road as highway=trunk because it has a high speed limit or "expressway" features, instead focusing more on its importance to the network.

Also, one of the principles of the classification scheme is to emphasize connectivity and minimize "spurs" where roads of a certain class don't connect at each end with a road of equal or higher class. This isn't always right, since sometimes roads do decrease in importance gradually as you leave an urban area, and I could see CA 180 being one of those exceptions to some extent. It just seems more likely to me (again, from afar) that this cutoff is somewhat west of Reed Ave., since it looks like it is surrounded by farmland, not residents, from the point the freeway ends. Maybe Academy is more reasonable, though I'm still a bit skeptical it has to be trunk at all.

Let me know what you think!

Best,
Will

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like you're quite eager to add trees to this park, which is great. However, it seems like you are attaching the trees directly to the highway=footway line, which makes it look like the trees are obstructing the path! It also looks like the tree nodes you're creating don't always correspond to actual trees, though I might be using a different satellite imagery layer than you. Can you clarify your intentions here? Did you mean for these all to be individual trees? Or were they just supposed to represent that the paths were "tree-lined" maybe?

In general, you want to make sure that each node corresponds to a real feature, and that objects only connect when they are connected in reality (like road intersections, or two buildings which touch each other).

Thanks!
Will

Also edited to conform to new terminal at Del Amo Station rather than DT LB

Hi, thanks for going through and adding crosswalks in LA. I was wondering though, what led you to decide to map this crossing across Main St? way/1213079479. I've seen you add this and other "unmarked" crossings across high-speed, multi-lane roads in recent changesets, and I'm worried mapping them as crossings does more harm than good. I'm a pretty confident pedestrian, but I certainly wouldn't feel safe crossing a major road with no crosswalk like here, and I worry that mapping it as a crossing is misleading. When I map crossings, I usually only map "unmarked" crossings across minor roads. You can see what I mean here: osm.org/#map=18/34.04125/-118.43534.

Let me know what you think.

Best,
Will

Hi Eugen,
Thanks for the note. That's interesting that some app processes hiking=yes on ways, if you figure out which it is and how it's used, I'd be interested to know. If the tag is useful information, there's no reason it can't be documented.

Regarding the trail I left a fixme on, thanks for sending that map. I'm quite familiar with this park, I in fact hiked the Rising Sun trail two weeks ago. So I know from on-location survey that there is a path branching off there, even if it does not appear on the map you sent. Even if they're unofficial, I find mapping these paths useful so that hikers aren't caught by surprise when there's a junction on their trail. Hopefully no one is deleting paths just because they don't appear on official maps! (Not saying you are of course ;), some of the other paths you've recently deleted look truly overgrown, or maybe were just bad tiger imports in the first place)

Best,
Will

This particular changeset lists Bing as a source. And from the edit pattern, it doesn't look like an import to me: they've added stop signs, parking=surface tags on existing lots, crosswalks, and marked torn down buildings. What makes you think it is an import, and from where could it possibly have been from? It looks to me much more like a newbie mapper who didn't know they were supposed to save changesets periodically before moving to another area.

Perusing other changesets by this mapper, they look like they've added a number of other buildings that appear to exist from aerial imagery, but based on one somewhat rude interaction resulting from slightly out of date imagery in changeset/140611357, you've reverted all of their edits? Is there more to this? Otherwise this revert does not seem justified. Happy to discuss this in an alternate forum if that's better.

For instance, this revert has deleted existing crosswalks (way/1198901851), removed new buildings (way/1198917796), and restored demolished ones (way/427818140), problems which, frankly given the number of local mappers, may never be fixed.

If you don't mind me asking, why was this reverted? Other than being huge, from a quick perusal, the original changeset looks like it mostly made worthwhile changes, and I think this revert has significantly lowered the map quality in the areas it touched.
Best,
Will

Hi,
Thanks for clarifying, by source I guess you mean as a second check? Because otherwise using as a source sounds quite like copying.

In any case, in the future it might be better to refer to this source as Esri itself, maybe using this link directly to their map: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html. Citing the website you sent makes it look like you were using data from a public domain database, which I found misleading.
Happy mapping,
Will

Hi,
I've noticed that in this and other recent changesets, you've been adding "hiking=yes" to a number of trails. Can you clarify what you mean by this tag? It isn't documented anywhere on the wiki far as I can tell, and more importantly, I'm not really sure what it's supposed to imply about, e.g. the service road you've added it to here. In fact, on some ways you removed established access tags like "foot=yes" in favor of it, which I reverted when I saw it.

Best,
Will

Hi,
Welcome to OSM! If you don't mind me asking, what were you trying to do here? Your edit appears to have removed names from a few roads, and even turned one of them into a power line. I'm going to go ahead and switch them back, but if you have any questions, feel free to reach out! This beginner's guide might also help: osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide.

Happy mapping!
Will

Hi,
Out of curiosity, what "local mapping guidelines" are you referring to here that led you to tag this route as trunk? Are they documented anywhere?

For context, consensus has emerged across the US to tag trunk routes by their importance to the road network rather than by physical characteristics, see osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance. As part of this, I and other mappers developed California state guidelines to adhere to this concept. You can read them here: osm.wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines. In particular, we documented this particular route as being best-tagged as highway=primary + expressway=yes, to reflect the fact that it does not connect major population centers, but is still built to near-freeway standards that allow for high speeds.

Happy to discuss these guidelines and the thought process behind them, and whether any modifications to various documented practices are necessary.

Best,
Will

Hi Olga,
Thanks for replying. Unfortunately, this response raises even more questions from me regarding your methods. The North American Roads database you linked to appears to contain only major roads. They appear on my system as blue lines, and if I click them, data such as object IDs and speed limits appear. "Santa Monica Place" does not appear to be in the database. Instead, I see Santa Monica Place as a label in the underlying base map, which appears to be from Esri. I think copying from this map would be prohibited in OSM, since I think it is copyrighted.

Moreover, even if it were allowed, I see no evidence from this map that the pathways themselves are named. The label appears to be labeling a location, not a road. Note how the label isn't inside the roadway, like it is for nearby Broadway or the 3rd Street Promenade.

Is there any other indication that makes you believe this path through the shopping center is named? If the roads database really was your only source for this edit, I believe you've misinterpreted it and that this should be reverted.

Best,
Will

Hi,
Regarding the Leeward intersection, note that it's preferred to map two-way stops like this on a node off the main road. There's an example on the wiki: highway=stop#Tagging_minor_road_stops. Also, direction here refers to the road's defined "direction", so should be "forward" or "backward", not the cardinal direction. Hope this helps!

Best,
Will

Hi,
Welcome to OSM! Thanks for trying to fix these lanes up. How to tag lanes correctly can be pretty tricky for newcomers. A couple of notes for you:
-The "forward" and "backward" values are always defined relative to the road's "direction". This direction is arbitrary, but in this particular case Slauson is defined as forward going eastward. It looks like your tagging switches back and forth.
-You always want to define a total lanes=* value, where the value is the sum of the lanes:forward and lanes:backward values
-While technically correct, you don't really need to define turn:lanes if the lanes are all going forward and there are no turn markings.
Hope that helps! If you need more information, the wiki has some helpful examples of lanes tagging: lanes=*.

Out of curiosity, what system are you working on where the bug was reported?

Best,
Will

Hello, please note that Windsor Square is already mapped as a node: node/7304762329, which is more typical for neighborhoods in the area. Also, by deleting landuse=residential from the polygon, you have removed information about the landuse from the map. In my opinion this should be reverted. What is your source for these edits?
Best,
Will

Hi, Santa Monica Place is the name of this mall complex. I don't think it's really the name of the pedestrian walkway through the mall. What is your source for this change?
Best,
Will

This fell off my radar, but it looks like you went ahead and put Metro back in the names yourself. Thanks for doing that!

Will

I attempted a distinction between grass allowed to grow without any apparent maintenance (natural=grassland), grass that appeared to be regularly cut but not for recreational use (landuse=meadow), and lawns intended for recreation (landuse=grass). But it's possible there's a better way of tagging this. It's also possible that some areas switch between these categories over time (recent survey seemed to match Bing imagery). But hey, they all render the same in Carto anyways ;)