James,
I think there will still be a need for flagging streets for removal. Streets that don’t exist or streets that are in a different town but has one node touching the town (that is being run) are still being listed. Will this feature be returning? Currently all we can do in the new version is to manually complete a street.
Yeah, initially my idea was “see bad data? go fix it” but that doesn’t account for people who can’t / don’t want to contribute to OpenStreetMap. It would be good to have some place to discuss which streets need fixes - whether that’s the old flagged streets setup, or another category in this forum, or somewhere else… 
we’ll have to figure that out.
I’m going to split this out into its own thread, because it’s worth a conversation and I want to keep this one on topic. 
Keeping a separate inventory of “bad streets” is just going to further complicate your ability to do regular updates from OSM, nevermind continuing to perpetuate bad data in OSM. The manual flagging needs to go away in favor of the original source. And, the issue with streets that transit two towns should just be a simple matter of taking the boundary polygon and cropping out the offending nodes.
2 Likes
I think the idea is more along the lines of having some venue of “this street is wrong in some way and I don’t know how to fix it.”
We’re all in agreement that the edits need to occur within OpenStreetMap.
Yeah, I’ve figured out a change to the original query to exclude nodes outside of the city. Unfortunately nothing is “simple” at the terabyte level of data. 
2 Likes
I’m interested in how you were able to exclude the nodes outside the city in one query…were you able to do it in overpass? And it didn’t scramble the ways?
I haven’t thoroughly checked it yet, but this looks like it’ll do it:
[timeout:900][out:json];
area(#{overpass_area_id})->.a;
(
way(area.a)
['name']
['highway']
['highway' !~ 'path']
['highway' !~ 'steps']
['highway' !~ 'motorway']
['highway' !~ 'motorway_link']
['highway' !~ 'raceway']
['highway' !~ 'bridleway']
['highway' !~ 'proposed']
['highway' !~ 'construction']
['highway' !~ 'elevator']
['highway' !~ 'bus_guideway']
['highway' !~ 'footway']
['highway' !~ 'cycleway']
['foot' !~ 'no']
['access' !~ 'private']
['access' !~ 'no'];
node(w)(area.a);
);
out;
If i understand the script right, the ! exclude stuff from the query ?
Regarding the access tag, shouldn’t you also exclude “permissive” and “destination” ?
I have seem them both in use when editing OSM.
I’ve been thinking this too, as one of the final streets I need to run in my immediate area is a residential street but owned by the Ministry of Defence and there is a big sign telling me not to go down it! There are a few more gated private streets that I know of that I don’t think should be included either.
Honestly, I have barely a clue to what I’m doing right now. 
(though I am slowly learning!)
The bulk of that query came from @zelonewolf 
and the modification that excludes nodes outside of the border came from mmd.
I’m unfamiliar with the permissive and destination tags, but now I’m learning about the different types of access!
We’re getting off topic here, so I decided to open Overpass Street Query for discussions on this query.
How about having the option to sync a single street with open street map? So after the edit there a user could select the street and then ask for a sync. Not sure if that is technically possible, you would need to know the ID. It could be limited to a few a day to avoid abuse.
Honestly, the new changes are very close. I was just going through my completed towns trying to get them to 100%. If I ran the street, it’s easy and I just manually complete the street, but there are some situations, where street doesn’t exist or can’t be run due to “no trespassing”, only one node for street that belongs to another town, It would be nice to just flag it and it gets taken out of the “Incomplete” streets (number of street completed would not be increment) and my town could show 100%. I would then know I’m done with that town and could move on to the next town without having to wait for changes.
That’s a neat hack to filter out the nodes in overpass like that. The only think I would be concerned about is, what happens when you have a way that exits and re-enters a city boundary? It seems like those nodes would simply disappear from the output and you’d have no way of knowing that the way is discontinuous, and you’d get weird behavior in cities with complex boundaries or inclaves/exclaves.
I’m hacking streets together by name, so I would expect to end up with a single street that has Nodes only within the city border. Kind of comparable to how two streets with the same name in a city end up as one Street record in CityStrides.
Oh, ok. If you’re only treating the streets as a set of nodes and not worried about connecting the nodes together, it sounds like this is a really good solution.