Old nodes still in CS?

Support City/Street/Node Issues
1

Hi James,

While planning a route a came across these streets in Amstelveen:

They seem to have extra nodes that are actually part of Watercirkel. So I went to OSM to edit them, but everything there seems correct, and the last update is from a year ago. From the change comment I deduce that there might have been a mixup before, so I guess that is where the extra nodes come from.

OSM:

So, questions:
Do you know why these nodes were not removed from those streets? My feeling is that it is something to do with renaming a way.
Can you remove them manually?

2

Interesting…

Between this and Wrong Node I feel like I need to set aside some time to look into the node removal process. :slightly_frowning_face:

3

This is reported before in Street with two names after update - #5 by hans1
I have quite a few more examples in Stockholm. As soon as someone (mostly myself :grinning:) changes the name of a street this may happen that a node gets both street names. Maybe this does not happen anymore, but has happened several times last years

4

Two months ago I updated a street name in Solna kommun, Hans Westerback is running Solna kommun, Stockholms län - CityStrides.
This street Tvärvägen Tvärvägen - CityStrides was found in two different places, the southern one is correct, but the nortern one was not, it was really a part of Polisvägen Polisvägen - CityStrides , so I updated this in OSM, but as you can see now the same nodes are included in both these streets

5

Ping @JamesChevalier

6

Let’s see if an update fixes things up…

:thinking: it did not. I’ll have to take a closer look when I have some free time.

1 Like
7

@JamesChevalier I found another similar case, but this was not after any updates I did, just happened to stumble upon it: Stockholm https://citystrides.com/users/24151/cities/113349
Look at Gebersvägen https://citystrides.com/streets/17107420
All these nodes are also (wrongly) attached to the neighboring Orhemsvägen https://citystrides.com/streets/9644385
cs3

1 Like
8

One more example, @JamesChevalier: Nacka kommun

One street was previously included in a closeby street, Augustendalsvägen Augustendalsvägen - CityStrides
I corrected this to the real name in OSM, Ellenviksvägen
Ellenviksvägen - CityStrides
And now all nodes in this street belong to both street names, as in this picture
cs4

9

Another example in Wiltshire (UK) following an OSM edit I made to correct the road name.

image
image750Ă—1334 131 KB

10

These street links are very helpful - thanks for sharing them. I probably can’t do anything without these links.

So I think I’m seeing:

Similarly:

I’ll have to step through the city update code to see why it’s picking up nodes like that…

1 Like
11

Just wanted to echo the previous posts since I’m seeing the same issue in my city. I’ve been updating street names in OSM as I’ve found mistakes and sometimes they aren’t pulled into CityStrides correctly.

Here’s a few examples. For the most part I’ve only been updating the way name in OSM for these and not really messing with the nodes or much else:

This one wasn’t caused by me and I can’t quite figure it out. East 116th Street includes nodes from Hazel Dell Parkway, but only for one specific way. Looking at the way history on OSM, version 12 inexplicably changed the name to East 116th Street, but it has since been fixed. That version also says the way has 41 nodes, which matches up with what got mistakenly pulled in to CityStrides.

I’m assuming the update code is pulling in older versions of ways or something. I can’t be sure exactly obviously so hopefully these examples can help in addition to the ones already posted.

12

Providing additional examples to help with troubleshooting. In this case the name of the way was updated in 2019 but is still showing nodes under two streets. The section of 82nd Ave N is being included with 81st Ave N.

image
image777Ă—479 64.5 KB

History of way:
image

82nd Ave N: https://citystrides.com/streets/2526456
81st Ave N: https://citystrides.com/streets/2526391

13

@zbrown4 I only looked at 82nd ave n, but comparing to Google maps, it seems like 82nd ave n is all over the place.

but then I looked at ArcGIS Web Application and got a different picture (map).

Unfortunately I did not find navigation, or searching, on that map very intuitive, and gave up.

But more maps at: City maps | Maple Grove, MN

maybe another is more useful? :crossed_fingers:

14

Yeah my city has a ton of disconnected streets across the same latitude or longitude with the same name. I think it still holds that the nodes on 82nd Ave should not be included in 81st Ave though. I’ll keep my eyes out for any clearer examples in my city though.

1 Like
15

Adding another case from my city:

16

I merged this thread with another because I’ve finally gotten around to solving this. I think. Hopefully.
:grimacing: :sweat_smile:

I’m currently updating Amstelveen, Noord-Holland - CityStrides which should clean up Theems - CityStrides and Wolga - CityStrides without causing other unintended problems. :sweat:

Let me know how that city looks after its last sync date is updated. If it looks good, I’ll start syncing the other cities mentioned in this thread…

3 Likes
17

Both streets look correct now, thanks James!

18

I just got around to checking this and Bledsoe Ave still includes Reagan Rd on citystrides. The name is corrected, but nodes belonging to Reagan Rd are still included with Bledsoe Ave. I double checked that OSM street names are all corrected, so not really sure what the issue is here.

19

Looks like LA was updated in January & my fix went in mid-February. I’d expect the next update to sort it out. Keep an eye on the date listed on the city’s page…

1 Like
20

I edited Stocker St. on OSM (Stocker Street - CityStrides and Stocker Street - CityStrides) a while ago to reflect the lack of footpath, and it looks like both cities involved (Ladera Heights and View Park-Windsor Hills) were updated pretty recently (June 30). The nodes still show up on citystrides though, is there still a delay in syncing these?