Great, thanks for fixing these so fast!

I'll try raising the issue on OSMUS Slack, I think I've seen folks there post about this effort.

Will

Hi again,
Browsing around a little more, it seems like the problem of defunct KFCs still being in AllThePlaces that I pointed out in changeset/152662539 is a general one. I pretty quickly found at least two more that appear to be permanently closed: node/11980218990 and node/11980210168. They are both also listed as closed 24/7 on the provided websites, maybe that's something the challenge can check for?

Best,
Will

Hi, thanks for doing this import, it seems like it's mostly adding good data to the map. However, in my local area I noticed a couple of errors in these data:
-This KFC doesn't exist: node/11980259978. It was torn down in 2018 according to streetlevel imagery, and something else (a Starbucks) was built in its place. Weirdly, in the website you appear to be scraping from, it shows the opening hours as closed 24/7: https://locations.kfc.com/ca/los-angeles/3061-sawtelle-blvd.
-This Panda Express is in the wrong place: node/11980259979. It looks like the website is referring to this already-mapped one: node/441936006, but for some reason you've placed it directly on top of the Culver City place=town node. Maybe an issue with the geolocator you/ATP is using? I notice someone else added a note to the existing one that they couldn't find it in ATP. In any case, there's certainly no Panda Express in the middle of the road next to Culver City Hall, nowhere near its street address.

Hopefully these edge cases can help you/the challenge designers better identify more false positives in your data.

Will

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding this business to the map. However, I noticed a few issues with your edits, which I tried to correct in my past change, but that you seem to have switched back:
-Your description is very subjective, reading as if it were advertising or Search Engine Optimization. This is not what OSM's description= tag is for, see description=*#No_advertising. Please kindly refrain from adding this sort of thing to the description.

-You also added back the "keywords" tag. This tag has no documented meaning in OSM. Are you aware of a service that uses these keywords, or one that is prompting you to add it to the shop? It would be useful for the community to know about.

-The value of the shop= tag is supposed to describe the type of product sold. There are quite a lot of possible values (see shop=*#Shop-specific_information), but "Retail" does not really describe the type of shop. From the website it seems like LA Mart sells mostly decor, so I thought interior_decoration would fit, but maybe there's a more accurate value? If you could describe what is sold in a comment here, that would be helpful.

-A small detail, but the correct address format in OSM is to keep the street name alone in addr:street, whereas the unit number should go in addr:unit. It looks like you put the unit number back in the street name. Again, is there some service that's prompting you to do that?

Again, welcome to the community, and I hope we can work together to properly represent your business while conforming to OSM standards. Please let me know if there's anything I can help with!

Will

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Is there really a "pond" here? From Bing aerial imagery it looks like a parking lot, is the pond underneath?

It looks like in other changes you added multiple ponds to this complex. I only see one in the middle, and it looks more like a swimming pool (leisure=swimming_pool). Is that what you might have meant?

Best,
Will

No problem! I moved the info you added over to the existing building in this change: changeset/151655920#map=18/34.10194/-118.33940. Thanks for contributing!

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like Madame Tussaud's is already mapped a couple of blocks over: way/424105889, next to the Chinese Theatre. Is that what you meant to map? I think the existing location is the correct one, unless it's moved since I've last been in the area?

Best,
Will

I happened to be driving by here today, and I verified that the signs prohibit parking overnight, not during the day. I've fixed it in changeset/150603883

Hey, it looks like on this change you added a no parking restriction from 10am-6pm along PCH. Is that really what is signed? Not to doubt you if you just surveyed it, but I feel like I always see cars parked there during the day. Are you sure it wasn't maybe no parking 10pm-6am (i.e. 22:00-06:00 rather than 10:00-18:00) or something? That would seem more likely to me if they don't want people there overnight. The Bing streetside was a bit blurry for me to make out though.
Thanks!
Will

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Quick question: did you mean to delete LaSorted Pizza or was that an accident?

Hey, yeah I'm leaning that Avalon is now appropriately tagged. What my comment is getting at is that this area has a lot of close-by parallel primaries: Vermont, Figueroa, Main, Avalon and Central. It's possible that their all roughly equally important for crosstown traffic and all thus deserve to be highway=primary. But I tend to find that a lot of the LA area has "too many primaries", and that a more hierarchical scheme, where there are more secondaries than primaries for example, is often a better description of the real relationship between streets in the area.

From aerial imagery, it seems like much of Main, Fig, and Central in this area are two through lanes each direction, are they all really equal in importance to Vermont and Avalon, which appear to have 3? I'd guess at least one or two of them is not, but I lack the on-the-ground knowledge to confidently say which. (Though that's not to imply that every road should be tagged strictly by its lane count: there can be relatively wide, unimportant roads and relatively narrow, important roads. But lane count is often correlated with importance)

Hi Channers,
No worries! I added the restaurant as a node at the correct corner in this changeset: changeset/150046439. Here's the restaurant: node/11819502353. Hope that looks ok!

Will

Hi, thanks for adding this sushi restaurant to the map! It looks like you might've accidentally changed the whole block to a building in this edit, did you mean to add the restaurant to one building?

Best,
Will

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! In this change, it looks like you added crime=robbery and date=* tags to a variety of roads and businesses. Can you clarify what purpose these serve? Note that OpenStreetMap is a public database that records real-world data.

-Will

Thanks for pointing out this documentation. It's a good call, I agree that camp_site is more appropriate for Curry Village based on this. I retagged it, including adding some extra tags documented there to try to make clear that you can't just show up and pitch a tent, and added a smaller core retail landuse in changeset/149661889.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like in this edit you might have drawn duplicate features on top of existing roads and buildings. Please make sure to check if the feature already exists in OSM before adding it! Perhaps you had the "existing data" layer turned off in Rapid somehow.

I'm going to go ahead and revert your edit so that it doesn't break things like correct routing on the 110, but please reach out and ask if you need any help, and don't be afraid to keep adding new data to the map!

Thanks, and happy mapping.
Will

Thanks for the info and the link. That's pretty interesting about the addresses being a mix of including and omitting the West prefix in between Sawtelle and Lincoln. My understanding was that Culver City didn't have any directional prefixes at all for streets within its limits. That's why similar streets like Sepulveda and Jefferson drop their prefixes when they cross from LA into Culver. But even Culver City's own interactive parcel map seems to have a mishmash of prefixed and non-prefixed addresses along Washington (which I hope/assume match those in the LA County one)! https://gisproxy.culvercity.org/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=ExternalInfo.ExternalInfo.

It kind of seems like no one really knows the actual street name here for sure haha. Maybe that's unsurprising, as Washington threads a strange needle of Culver City's borders where parts of some of the adjoining lots are actually partly in the city of LA. With that in mind, I would tend to favor the signage on the ground, which omits the "West", and is more consistent with the other major streets in Culver City limits. But based on this info I no longer feel terribly strongly about it either way.

Thanks for looking into it, and for fixing the westernmost portion, which as you said definitely follows the Venice addressing system starting at zero from the beach and thus has no West prefix.

Best,
Will

Hi, can you link to the county assessor map you're using to justify this change? I previously removed the directional prefix from the roads you changed here west of Sawtelle (in this changeset: changeset/128061187). My reasoning was that the "West" prefix isn't on the street signs in Culver City or Venice/Marina del Rey. In fact, these areas don't appear to use any directional prefixes at all in their addresses/street names as far as I can tell. So I think just "Washington Boulevard" is the more correct name in these areas. I think adding the prefix east of La Cienega is a good change though.

Thanks!
Will

Yeah that seems much less prone to misinterpretation! Thanks for engaging with my input :)