Hi philpennmap, I've reverted this changeset with changeset/177724792 -- there was already an existing relation for Governors Island (relation/2389631). Please see comments on changeset/174440574

thanks, jmapb

Hi philpennmap, wireguy is correct here -- there was already a relation mapped for Liberty Island (relation/9791559), so there's no need to create a new one. I reverted this changeset with changeset/177701290 and removed the new relation you added (relation/19815770).

It looks like you also created duplicate relations for Governors Island (relation/19815779) and Ellis Island (relation/19815764). These have been fixed too.

It's a good idea to use OSM's search function and the "query features" function (? symbol on the right of the map) to find what's already mapped, to avoid creating duplicates. And if you think you might have created other duplicates and need help fixing them, please let me know.

Thanks, jmapb

Hi, I removed way/1298676047 in changeset/173253101

If the only reason to tag this place leisure=park is for consistency with other Westchester-managed parks... that's not great.

I mentioned a couple of wilderness parks I'd left as leisure=park. If I'd had the itch to reclassify them, I'd 1) consult the current documentation 2) try to get a local consensus from other mappers -- especially the ones who'd done the original tagging, if still active. That's how a cooperative project like this should work. (Obviously it's different when the tagging's clearly incorrect -- if these had been tagged as zoos, for instance.)

Thanks for the trail data improvements!

There are indeed regional variations in mapping style, & I bet leisure=park is in use for dozens, maybe hundreds of places like this in NYS -- it's an older tag, so that wouldn't be too surprising. I can think of a couple nearby I edited this year (Cheesecote Mountain Park way/406448162 and High Tor State Park way/435087846) that I found tagged as leisure=park & left them that way... because generally I am a "let's leave it as-is" kind of mapper, more concerned with the trails and boundaries than the tagging.

But matthewfecica, you did not "leave it as-is" -- per the changeset comment, you "corrected feature type"! So if you believe leisure=park is a better tag for Cranberry Lake Preserve, please explain why.

Fixed

Building is mapped as way/241837908 which was added as part of the 2013 building import by ... LizBarry_nycbuildings! The city's footprint was a little off though, so it looked smaller than irl. (I fixed it a few months ago.)

This building is now just 89 Grand, but MDFG was on the ground floor here and used the address 87 Grand. Same space is now a vintage store (node/9071320913) using the address 89 Grand. There's still an empty lot to the west, which is where I found the MDFG shop node -- hasn't been a building there for at least 11 years though.

Hello PedestrianMapping_HopMapper, I've partially reverted this changeset (as well as 169050380, 168908129, 168906355, 168906228, 168905595, and 168905269) with changeset/170228832 due to some strange changes of sidewalk geometry and incorrect modification of surface tags. I tried to leave the correct changes intact.

I understand this is part of an organized editing project by Meta. I've reviewed https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/869 https://maproulette.org/challenge/51162/task/294635175 and osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Meta/Pedestrian_Mapping but can't quite make out what's going on here. I'd love to know:
- Why are these challenges being created in particular spots (what's a "complex intersection"?)
- What observations will trigger a change, and what are the recommended changes?
- What are the procedures for task validation?

Thanks, jmapb

Hello PedestrianMapping_HopMapper, I've partially reverted this changeset with changeset/170227725. The geometry changes you've made here caused sidewalks to cross a building and through a private parking area. I tried to leave the correct changes intact.

I understand this is part of an organized editing project by Meta. I've reviewed https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/869 https://maproulette.org/challenge/51162/task/294635175 and osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Meta/Pedestrian_Mapping but can't quite make out what's going on here. I'd love to know:
- Why are these challenges being created in particular spots (what's a "complex intersection"?)
- What observations will trigger a change, and what are the recommended changes?
- What are the procedures for task validation?

Thanks, jmapb

Thanks, I've had this stalled at priority #3 for weeks now ;)

Bullmers removed this mislocated fitness center in changeset/166876590 but unfortunately deleted the whole building in the process. I've reverted in changeset/169479627, all fixed now.

Looks like I missed one, just reverted 164941039 with changeset/169342962. In other news, tuesdayyadseut (hello there!) has changed names to tues111, which is a lot less of a mouthful.

Reverted in changeset/169342962, see see comments in changeset/164958290

Reverted in changeset/169297918, see see comments in changeset/164958290

Reverted in changeset/169297918, see see comments in changeset/164958290

Reverted in changeset/169297918, see see comments in changeset/164958290

Reverted in changeset/169297918, see see comments in changeset/164958290

I just did changeset/169297918 reverting this, as well as tuesdayyadseut's similar changesets 164998419/164958009/164949377, and your partial repair changeset/165076605 MxxCon. I tried to revert just the messed up building shapes and keep the address updates, but it was too much trouble. But all geocoders I know work fine in Brooklyn without the city and state tags, so no terrible loss.

Hi, what's your source of info for this bridge? Last I checked it was pedestrian only. Are vehicles under 3 tons now permitted?

How lovely, sorry to see them painted over.

The current track alignment seems to jive well with the imported easement at way/808686181 so I'm not inclined to futz with the subway ways. (Not sure we really need those subterranean easements mapped but I'm not inclined to futz with them either 😉)