I'm looking at Tag:crossing=marked, and it's a little vague. It says:

Set a node on the highway where the transition is and add highway=crossing + crossing=marked.

If the crossing is also mapped as a way, tag it as highway=footway footway=crossing crossing=marked or highway=cycleway cycleway=crossing crossing=marked as appropriate.

Doesn't that violate the principle of One feature, one OSM element? For example, here's a crossing from where overpass-turbo defaults to showing:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7780814396

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833493479

You've got a way with these tags:

crossing=marked
crossing:markings=yes
footway=crossing
highway=footway
surface=asphalt

And the intersection node with the street it's crossing has these tags:

crossing=marked
crossing:markings=yes
highway=crossing
tactile_paving=no

Shouldn't that be one or the other? It makes sense to me to represent the crossing as a way with all the tags, and leave the intersection untagged. I noticed though that StreetComplete doesn't really like that, and will give you quests to add tags to the intersection node even if the way is properly tagged.

Original comment:

I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice?

Previous discussion

I've got a patio for a restaurant tagged as leisure=outdoor_seating. That page says you can add operator=* as a string, but I'm wondering if I can add a Relation between the patio and the restaurant. This is really for semantic reasons, because if the restaurant changes its name or gets a new owner, it would be nice if the patio didn't then have out-of-date information.

I don't see a Relation type that's relevant. I don't want to just start doing my own thing, so does anyone know of a way to use a Relation here, and if not, is that something that can be proposed?

Thanks for all of the responses on my other questions, btw. This community has been very helpful.

I'm taking a look at traffic circles like this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.790043/-118.142392

The main traffic circle has been split up into 8 different segments, so that individual segments can have Relations added to them, such as the "Long Beach Transit 174" bus route. I'm new to mapping, so I don't really know what to expect, but it seems odd to split it up like that. It ends up adding noise to StreetComplete, in that I can't just say "yep, this traffic circle is asphalt", I have to go to a bunch of tiny segments and mark each one of them as asphalt.

I've also seen this for items generated from Lyft data, where a single road gets split into tiny segments so that one part can be marked as "no u-turn" or "no left turn". StreetComplete wants me to mark each tiny segment individually.

I'm looking to tag a simple 4 way stop with typical US red/yellow/green traffic signals. I was wondering what the difference between signal and traffic_lights is in iD, and the wiki page just says this about traffic_lights:

A typical traffic signal. This value was the second most common value as of 2021-09-15 despite being undocumented until that point.

Looking at the talk page there, it links to this post, where an iD dev seems rather annoyed at the wiki:

I took a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals and now I'm furious.

Forget it.

There is no way I'm going to support traffic_signals=yes for pedestrian signals, after the wiki folks aren't even ok with iD using traffic_signals=signal for a normal traffic signal - a tagging that was accepted just not very widespread before iD started doing it.

The OSM Wiki needs to end. Seriously. It's ruining this project.

I'm using iD, so should I just leave it as the default signals and leave the fighting up to the devs? As an aside, does anyone know why there seems to be so much animosity there? Kind of surprising TBH

I've encountered a bus stop that still exists, but has a sign from the city saying that no busses stop there. There's the disused tag on the wiki which seems relevant, but I'm not sure how to tag it exactly. There's lots of tags like ref, route_ref, operator:wikidata and so on. Should all of those tags get prefixed with disused:?

I'm trying to correct local buildings on OSM. I've noticed that some of the buildings were traced before according to one set of satellite images, but are off according to others. One of the options for a background while editing that I've got is called orthoimagery. Can I assume that that is the best set of satellite images for tracing buildings from?

I saw this posted in another community, and was very confused for a bit. Can/should they be made to change their name? I'm not really sure how that sort of thing works.

Finished reading the Remembrance of Earth's Past series (i.e. The Three-Body Problem and the other books) and have opinions. WARNING: SPOILERS

Overall I liked it a lot. I felt like the books could've been a lot tighter though, and Liu Cixin really needed an editor. Lots of cool ideas, but I did not care about the 3 old guys arguing with each other in the first part of the second book. It gave some background info, but that could've been collapsed into a few paragraphs. I also didn't need the whole backstory of some some ship's cook whose plot relevance was about 10 seconds long.

I didn't have my mind blown by the ideas in it. Not that I begrudge people that do, I'm just not lying awake worrying about the dark forest hypothesis. Maybe it's because there's not much we can do about it anyways 🤷. I did really like the recasting of string theory's 11 dimensions as not some beautiful reality of the universe, but as the result of brutal galactic warfare.

I thought the FTL communication was kind of weird for a series that mostly tried to stick to (or at least give lip service to) hard sci-fi. If you haven't seen it before, this is a good explainer of the problems with FTL communication: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php. In the end, I think it more wants to be cosmic horror than hard sci-fi, which is fine.

One minor nit I have is that at the very end they talk a big deal about making messages last for billions of years, and they arrive at carving messages into stone. Good idea, but even then the message got partially lost. Why not add redundancy and carve it multiple times? I also kind of expecting something "clever", like writing the message into the genes of the mobile trees or something.

Sadly didn't notice it until after the event was over otherwise I would've helped draw it

https://canvas.fediverse.events/#x=899&y=69&zoom=12