Hey, thanks for your detailed tagging!

Just a quick tip—its usually a good idea group changes that are widely geographically separated, and have no other direct connection (e.g. moving a store from one location to another) into separate changesets, as it keeps things more logical and easier to review. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170904773

Thanks for refining this! Just FYI, in changest #170708973 https://osmcha.org/changesets/170708973 I fixed and refined the geometry and end tagging of the footways leading to the tennis courts to be more precise and consistent, and also added access tagging (since AFAIK these are intended for Hethwood residents, not the general public).

Also, just a note—make sure to align the VBMP imagery you're using for tracing, as its about 1-1.5 meters off. At least in the Blacksburg area, GPS tracks are a close match to Bing imagery at high zoom levels, so you can just align VBMP to that.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170677155

No worries, you didn't mess anything up and it wasn't wrong just incomplete, and I was giving you a few tips to make it better next time. If there really was something wrong, I would have gone ahead and fixed it right away :) Thanks for explaining the situation more in your other changeset comment, and sorry if I wasn't as kind and understanding as I should have been!

It took me a while to fully figure out crossing tags and get them 100% right, though nowadays the PWG has a schema and guide that has all the details in one place: osm.wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Pedestrian_Working_Group/Guide As a new PWG member I am gonna work on making it friendlier and more accessible for new users.

No worries, it was a straightforward fix and thanks for the detailed and understanding reply! And its great that you are helping map! I'm a VT alum myself (BA Geography, BS Meteorology '17) exclusively biking everywhere when I was there. Lately I've been mapping bicycle and pedestrian infra around Blacksburg, including a lot of what you and the other BikeStreets.com mapper (your dad?) were working on (including the ways in this changeset), and while I don't always split at every node, it is helpful to split at least by block as well as longer ways at logical breaks.

I really appreciate the additional context; that's really helpful in understanding the situation better. I also talked with the user atticquilt (maybe your dad?) on their changset #170357437 changeset/170357437 who was also mapping for BikeStreets.com but that gives me some additional context to that discussion.

> The splits are if I want the low stress map to go a certain direction that the current length of the segment doesn’t allow for.

Right, I figured this was because your renderer/router didn't properly support automatically splitting ways at intersections. NB, I discuss this in more detail on the changeset linked above, but in general there is no expectation that OSM ways are split at every intersection unless there is a reason for them to be (e.g. tags, length, relation membership, etc) and the the great majority of them aren't; other data consumers that need it handle this sort of mechanical pre-processing themselves.

Personally, I'm a lot more intentional than most when it comes to splitting ways, doing so at significant intersections and logical points and re-grouping ways consistently, so I find a lot of your changes generally helpful. On the other hand, splitting ways too finely at every single small intersection (especially on things like crossings) can make them more tedious to edit and easier to make mistakes, as well as making the history harder to navigate, without a direct benefit to OSM (since data consumers that need it already handle this properly). For this reason, I've suggested he post on the OSM community forum explaining what you all are doing and why to gather feedback and either get community buy-in for splitting on every single intersection, or collaborate on potential alternatives.

FYI, you and your dad are welcome to join the OSM-US Slack https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/ if you haven't already, the main hub for the US mapping community—great for asking questions and soliciting community feedback. We recently created a #local-nrv channel for discussion of mapping in the local area. Anyway, happy mapping, good luck with your studies and GO HOKIES!

Hey, just a tip—if you're going to split a crossing, its a good idea to make sure you split it properly so that each crossing is its own way, instead of arbitrarily splitting some crossings and keeping others conjoined without a clear reason. Also, way/1422301376 you created is not a crossing, it is part of the sidewalk and should be tagged accordingly.

Finally, just as a reminder, its really helpful to other mappers to give your changesets meaningful, descriptive comments about what you changed and why, which you are especially expected to do as an organized, paid mapper. Speaking of which, as such per OSM policy you and your team members are required to (among other things) include a unique, documented hashtag to identify your changes as such in your changeset comments, e.g. #BikeStreets. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170440591

> There was a modeling artifact on the trail where rather than making a clear movement across the street, which is what people do in that spot, the modeling artifact suggested that you would turn left on Duck Pond Drive, then turn right on the trail.

It's been a little bit since I last biked in that exact spot, but yup this is indeed exactly what I did there as a cyclist in the real-world, and (following review of the available sources of aerial and ground-level imagery as well as Virginia and local law) is why I mapped it that way.

The alternative would appear to be riding at a greater than 45-degree angle into oncoming traffic coming around a nearly-blind corner (with under 2 seconds of reaction time at the speed limit), over a narrow bridge (signed as such), across a double yellow line, along a course with no markings, signage or legal right-of-way under Virginia law as cyclists or even as pedestrians. While I don't doubt some cyclists may choose to ride in this fashion, I'm not aware of either a legal right of way nor any physical crossing infrastructure that would support it being mapped as a lawful and on-the-ground verifiable cycleway in OSM (much less an explicitly `bicycle=designated` one, and missing crossing tags on the way).

However, if you have access to some survey data or (OSM-allowable) imagery that supports its existence, I'd be happy to take a look. Alternatively, perhaps there is there something else I'm missing here as to why this should be the preferred mapping per documented OpenStreetMap conventions?

> hence the need for ways that are properly split at various junctions.

I _personally_ typically split ways at logical junctions (provided they don't result in split ways that are excessively short, frequent or otherwise make mapping and editing them more tedious and error-prone), and I actually find many of the changes generally helpful when they are splitting e.g. long footways, or sidewalks at blocks/intersections. However, I'm not aware of OSM documented community guideline or convention I'm aware of that states or implies that it is "proper" or even beneficial that ways be split at every intersection with another routable way—in fact, general de-facto mapping convention mostly only splits contiguous linear ways where there is a direct OSM-relevant reason to do so, such as a change in tags, relation membership or excessive length, and shorter continuous ways that don't have any apparent reason to be split are liable to be recombined by other mappers, especially things like splitting crossing ways and short footway segments that make editing tags more time-consuming and error-prone.

Unconditionally splitting every bicycle-navigable ways at every junction with another such way so your specific router can handle them may get a bit close to the core principle of OSM of [don't map for the router](osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_router) in some mappers' view, given this is not widespread mapping practice, has the aforementioned potential drawbacks if done in all cases without a visible OSM benefit, and is not required for any other car, bike or pedestrian router I'm aware of. Also, at least to some mappers it may look a bit like [mechanical edits](osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy) which OSM has some pretty strict rules on.

Therefore, to continue this discussion, mitigate any potential pushback and gather community feedback, I think it would be highly beneficial for you to make a post on [the OSM community forum](https://community.openstreetmap.org/) explaining the mass changes your team is making, the rationale behind them and welcoming feedback and suggestions on your approach. You've been quite responsive and friendly thus far and appear to have a non-trivial history as a mapper, so I suspect it would be well received and beneficial to all involved if you initiated it. If not, I'd be happy to make a post myself sharing my perspective as a neutral mapper, highlighting the benefits I see while also surfacing some potential concerns others might have (to which you'd be most welcome to reply to share your perspective).

Hey, thanks for the quick and detailed response!

> Yes, we are building a bike map

Thanks for the clarification here! As this appears to be [Organised Editing](osm.wiki/Organised_Editing) with employees mapping under the direction of your company, you'll want to read and follow the [Organised Editing Guidelines](https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines), e.g. listing your project [in the wiki's list of such](osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities) and providing at least [basic documentation](https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines#Documentation_on_the_wiki) of who you are, the types of changes you will be making and why, etc.; posting an announcement on the OSM community forum and other channels as appropriate to the areas you'll be mapping in (e.g. OSM-US Slack), and tagging your company's changesets with a unique hashtag (e.g. `#BikeStreets`). This will also aid community acceptance and understanding of your changes and help foster a constructive collaboration ahead of time to ensure they are mutually beneficial for both the OSM community and yourselves.

Hi atticquilt, I'm a little perplexed by this changeset. Could you help me understand what you were trying to fix that was wrong with the previous geometry, your reasoning for changing it, and why you chose the geometry you did given what's on the ground here? Thanks!

On another note, I see you and several other recently active mappers in the Blacksburg area appear to be affiliated with http://BikeStreets.com, and have rather particular patterns of mapping viz splitting ways, I assume for routing purposes—could you help me understand a little more about what you're doing and why? (PS: Detailed, meaningful changeset comments are really helpful in that regard :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170357437

By the way, that's a really cute kitty cat in your profile photo! >^..^< Also, just a tip—its a great idea to write a detailed changeset comment explaining what you did and why you did it, so that other mappers can understand your intent :)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

On another note, I see you and several other recently active mappers in the Blacksburg area appear to be affiliated with BikeStreets.com, and have rather particular patterns of mapping viz splitting ways, I assume for routing purposes—could you help me understand a little more about that? Thanks, and happy mapping!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

Hi TheKegzster—welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for contributing! Your other two changesets appeared fine, but just wanted to let you know that I noticed this one had accidentally deleted the portions of Edge Way in both directions connecting it to Toms Creek Road, meaning that car and bike routing into and out of The Edge apartment complex will be broken—surely not what you intended here, and will presumably cause bigger problems for the cycle mapp application you're trying to use then you were trying to fix :)

Given the critical nature of the change, I immediately pushed a new changeset, #170372077 , fixing the problem. I also split Edge Way between the crossing and Tom's Creek into separate ways, in case that was what you intended to do instead. So its all fixed now, not to worry, and I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future ;)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

Hey, thanks for adding sidewalks! Quick tip: when you've gone to the work of adding separate sidewalks like this, don't forget to add the `sidewalk:<left/right/both>=separate/no` tags on their respective streets, so they get properly tagged and picked up as such per approved OSM practice as well as accepted local convention. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169836414

Thanks for fixing the issue from changset #169697932 !
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169796175

Flagging as SEO spam per discussion; fixed by Udarian in changeset #169796175
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169697932

Thanks!

BTW, just a heads up you're welcome to join the new #local-nrv channel on the OSM-US Slack workspace https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/ , and/or the Map NRV Discord server https://discord.gg/TYyeyjYh (both created by other prolific local mappers) for a place to discuss things and chat with the local mapping community, in case you're interested!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169624416

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification! In that case, the correct tag would be `access=private`, combined with `private=employees` to precisely specify who it is private to. As a bonus, I also added in the full set of operator tags to the object, to make it unambiguous whom the employer must be. (There's also `access=government`, but its not formally documented, much less common and less precise since this space is specifically open to employees of the Blacksburg Parks and Rec department operating the park rather than any government official.)

I made the fix in changeset #169697721 , along with fixing the typo in the benches' `seats` capacity (set to `e` rather than the presumably-intended `3`): https://osmcha.org/changesets/169697721
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169521437

Hey, I noticed while fixing the access tag in changset #169521437 that the bench seats added here were also flagged, in this case with an invalid value for seats ("e" instead of a positive integer number, which appears to just be a typo). Given these are approximately 1.8 m / 6 ft wide which yields a typical capacity of 3 persons, "3" is the most likely intended number given its position directly adjacent to "e" on the keyboard in the same finger-sweep, and is also the easiest to mistake for it given the similarity in glyphs, I went ahead and set it to this value in changeset #169697721 https://osmcha.org/changesets/169697721
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169518632

Hey, FYI access=designated is meaningless (as it refers to explicit designation for a _specific mode of transport_) and should not be used. Per the wiki: access=designated

> NOTE! The exact key/value combination access=designated should never appear on an object. The value designated must be used with a specific mode of transport. Examples: bicycle=designated or foot=designated.

Given the inherent non-meaning and lack of context clues, I'm not sure what you meant here such to suggest something instead—could you clarify? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169521437

Hey, thanks! Seems though that `crossing:markings` was set to `ladder` rather than `zebra` on the node (which seems a bit odd that VT would revert to using the old ladder markings rather than zebra that they use everywhere else at least for newly-painted crosswalks). Also, I see it wasn't updated on the way, leaving them out of sync. Which one did you intend? Thanks!