piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
AndersAndersson (2025-06-10 21:27:01+00:00): Aha, jag tyckte det verkade konstigt att det satt access=no på den nya cykelvägen, men ser nu att det är på gamla bilvägen bommen är och cykelvägen går parallellt. Då blir det genast mer logiskt.
Tack för svaret!
Catherine Kachan (2025-06-17 06:52:27+00:00): Hello, mona_magdy! Could you please clarify the reason for editing ways within the intersection which had correct geometry? Previous edit (167211095) looked totally correct and was done according to OSM wiki.
mona_magdy (2025-06-18 07:51:17+00:00): Hello, Catherine Kachan;
I wanted to thank you for your contribution to improving the quality of road maps for the United Arab Emirates in OSM, I have modified the connection based on the signs and arrows that appear in OSM satellite images, as well as the newer Mapillary tracks (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=110833021357040), and I have placed the necessary restrictions on the roads and verified that the route is correct. Also, the method of drawing this connection is recognized in the United Arab Emirates.
Regards
mona_magdy
Maryna Makarava (2025-06-20 14:05:13+00:00): Hello, mona_magdy! Thank you for the clarification.
To continue your discussion with Catherine Kachan, I would like to add some details.
There is an article with recommendations for mapping in the UAE region: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates. It has the following information regarding intersections mapping: "as many intersections in urban areas of the UAE include dedicated turning-only lanes with access blocked to through-traffic lanes by barriers or curbs, these are best mapped as separate connector roads as opposed to simply tagging lane restrictions on the thru-traffic road". According to this recommendation, it makes sense to create separate connector roads only in case if there is a turning lane separated by a physical barrier. In this case there are no barriers or curbs within turning lanes, so we should probably consider mapping this intersection as a regular T-intersection with dual carriageway roads. Adding separate connector roads is not essential and excessive in this case if we rely on the mapping recommendations for the UAE region.
Best regards, Maryna Makarava.
mona_magdy (2025-06-22 14:22:53+00:00): Hi Maryna Makarova,
Thanks for your explanation, but please share with me some cases that agree with your opinion to make it clearer to me.
In addition, I want to share my thoughts with you in those tracks
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=878641299707017
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1234655560279093
We see that the arrows agree with our modification. If you have an official source that agrees with your opinion, please share it with us
Regards
mona_magdy
Maryna Makarava (2025-06-25 13:58:40+00:00): We would like to clarify a misunderstanding regarding the edits in question. The examples you are providing illustrate traces that confirm the geometry of secondary links for right turns, which are not the subject of the discussion. Our concern relates to the connector roads added for left turns at the intersection, which were returned back by your team after we removed them: w1393753594, w1392294017.
You requested an official source to support our position, which has already been provided: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates . Additionally, here is an example of correctly mapped T-intersection: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id&#map=19/24.429510/54.563747 
The inclusion of connector roads for left turns in this scenario does not enhance data quality and is excessive. As previously stated, the OpenStreetMap source for the UAE indicates that connector roads are unnecessary in the absence of a physical barrier. Given that no such barriers exist in the case under discussion, so, that was our main concern. Furthermore, the presence of arrows or any other road markings does not justify the addition of connector roads. We're open to any changes that are following the OSM guidelines, so if you have some, that we are not aware of - please share, so we can revise our approach. For now we stand for source I shared above as a main source of truth.
mona_magdy (2025-06-29 13:03:07+00:00): Hello, Maryna Makarava;
We would like to thank you for your continuous communication with us, and we understand your point of view.
I would like to clarify that the connection you initially drew in this changeset :
Link: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=167211095
Does not exactly match the example you attached
Link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id&#map=19/24.429510/54.563747
However, we took your feedback into account and modified the connection again using this method
Link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168264242
This method is also recognized in the United Arab Emirates and achieves the intended routing in the same way as the example you provided.
We hope this serves as a compromise solution that is correct and ensures proper routing.
Thank you again for your collaboration.
mona_magdy
Maryna Makarava (2025-07-02 06:42:41+00:00): Thank you for your constructive communication and for modifying the connections! We hope our collaboration improves OpenStreetMap and ensures proper routing.
Best regards, Maryna
mona_magdy (2025-07-02 08:08:05+00:00): Thanks
FajrAl (2025-06-10 15:23:35+00:00): Halo, selamat datang di OpenStreetMap!
Terima kasih telah berkontribusi. Kami memahami bahwa ada isu hangat terkait Raja Ampat saat ini. Namun perlu diingat bahwa data di OSM harus tetap objektif dan akurat sesuai dengan fakta di lapangan.
Perubahan yang Anda lakukan terindikasi sebagai vandalisme. Kami mohon agar ke depannya dapat lebih diperhatikan dan mengikuti pedoman komunitas OSM dalam menyunting data.
Jika ada hal yang ingin didiskusikan lebih lanjut, komunitas OSM Indonesia siap membantu. Terima kasih!

[eng]
Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Thank you for contributing. We understand that there is a warm issue related to Raja Ampat. But keep in mind that the data at OSM must remain objective and accurate in accordance with the facts on the ground.
The changes you make are indicated as vandalism. We ask that in the future it can be more careful and follow the OSM community guidelines in editing data.
If there are things you want to discuss further, the Indonesian OSM community is ready to help. Thank You!
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-12 05:00:26+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18337
BCNorwich (2025-06-10 08:04:47+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've made corrections, please check the shop POI is within the correct house outline. 

Regards Bernard.
dzidek23 (2025-06-10 14:41:34+00:00): Hi, I too was intrigued by this entry and decided to tidy up a bit an add some info from your website.
habi (2025-06-10 07:08:58+00:00): Pfad zwischen swissALTI3D und GPX-Track interpoliert.
phoenixsaigon1698 (2025-06-27 01:54:42+00:00): Này chắc anh note vào sheet để sửa xong, remove motorcar=no nhỉ?
tuan_gsm (2025-06-27 09:13:24+00:00): Này sửa xong chưa? thấy t báo vẫn chưa sửa xong á
phoenixsaigon1698 (2025-06-27 09:15:57+00:00): ý là nên theo dõi tin để khi sửa xong, anh remove là dc. ;)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-26 13:25:24+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3529893442/history has shop = textiles that was added in this edit
shop=textiles ? Is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=fabric describing this shop well? Is it intentional that shop=textiles, was used not shop=fabric? How it differs from it?
VictorIE (2025-11-26 15:26:05+00:00): Hi,

I didn't set out to map the shop, it was something that iD pointed out was mis-tagged.

I think I was mapping churches in Lesotho, southern Africa that day and when investigating odd tagging for the churches in Lesotho, I found the churches in this changeset. 

I have no knowledge of this place, but shop=fabric would seem to make more sense.
StC (2025-08-29 17:45:42+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là. Je vais essayer de réparer mais je ne suis pas sûr d'avoir assez d'informations pour la réparation.
serge Raidon (2025-08-30 12:51:20+00:00): J ai fait le parcours et la partie supprimé est interdite d accès par l ONF. Il a été déplacé vers l ouest
Siarhei Salauyou (2025-06-17 06:56:16+00:00): Hello, mona_magdy! Could you please clarify the reason for correcting the previous edit (167182545)? It looks like the current geometry of the intersection you created is incorrect, it is not routable when driving from south to north right now. The previous edit didn’t require any corrections and was done according to OSM wiki.
mona_magdy (2025-06-18 09:26:13+00:00): Hello, Siarhei Salauyou;
I would like to thank you for your contribution to improving the United Arab Emirates maps on OSM The modifications I made in this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167431187#map=16/24.54816/54.79300) were based on the fact that two nearby links are u-turns through these roads (w688925796, w688925797), and also because this shape is recognized in the United Arab Emirates. I modified the drawing method again to make more easier the route in this area easier, in this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167770912#map=16/24.55660/54.79259).
Regards
mona_magdy
Siarhei Salauyou (2025-06-20 10:22:26+00:00): Thank you for improving intersection geometry!
It is routable now and is done in accordance with OSM wiki.
Best regards, Siarhei Salauyou.
mona_magdy (2025-06-22 14:22:11+00:00): Thanks
habi (2025-06-10 08:14:49+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4798416 erledigt, falschen Link in Changeset-Kommentar kopiert
bxl-forever (2025-06-10 09:40:23+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM.

It looks like you have inadvertently been tracing buildings on aerial imagery.

Those images are not suitable for buildings, they will show a distorted view.  Can you please redo your edit and trace on the appropriate base layer,

I see you are using the online iD editor.  When you are editing, on the right side of your screen, there is a "Background" button, where you can scroll down to "Digitaal Vlaanderen GRB".  Please make sure to only use that one when touching building shapes.
silversurfer83 (2025-06-10 19:25:52+00:00): Hello Jonathan,

please use better comments and here's a tip for better looking buildings (and other objects with right angles): After you chose the tags you can square them with the "Q" key on your keyboard. Maybe try it with these new buildings of yours.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167432029
jonathanhoogstra2006 (2025-06-10 19:32:56+00:00): Thank you for the tip! I really appreciate it.
silversurfer83 (2025-06-10 19:48:12+00:00): You're very welcome.

One more thing: Since you're mapping a camp site: Please make sure to only map permanent trailers you surveyed.
jonathanhoogstra2006 (2025-06-10 19:54:46+00:00): Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Sometimes it's difficult to know, but I'll do my best. This is where my camping place is, where my caravan is parked lol. thx
BCNorwich (2025-06-10 11:17:16+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

A couple of querys. Can you add the gates or say where they are situated? Also the tag access=no implies that no means of transport can enter, when vehicles can clearly be seen on imagery and there are houses accessed. Thus I've removed the access=no tag.

Regards Bernard.
Robkoko (2025-06-10 17:50:08+00:00): How you can see cars there? If you open streetview on google you cant see this road
Robkoko (2025-06-10 17:52:54+00:00): I will try to add it on laptop ,but i am new on this,cca half of the road is public and half has gate and behind this gate somewhere in the middle is another gate,i tried today finnish street on citystrides.com ,but it was not possible cause of this gates,nodes are behind gates
BCNorwich (2025-06-10 17:58:49+00:00): Hi, You can see cars on Google Maps, Maxar, Bing, and Esri imagery. At the east end of Trenham Ave I can see cars in the driveways of the two houses; they must have access.
JassKurn (2025-06-10 19:02:53+00:00): If you look on Bing Streetside you can see there Trenham Avenue joins Tyefields by crossing the footway of Tyefields. There is a give way before the footway. An example of an OSM continous crossing?

https://www.bing.com/maps?&cp=51.575797~0.515389&lvl=19.83&dir=213.16301&pi=-25.197578&style=x&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

access=no is rarely correct. It means the road exists but there is not access along it, for anything. That means no private access, and pedestrian access.
Robkoko (2025-06-11 19:48:14+00:00): Ok guys ,at first you can see on google maps cars because part of this road has public access,problem is that there is one gate somewhere in area where word wilsner is finnished,another gate is somewhere where is Letter "T" of Trenham Avenue.Another thing is that this map is incorrect ,because there are houses on green area above Trenham Avenue words on green color.send me email and i will send you pictures because i living on wilsner and everymorning i walking arround Trenham A.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-06-10 08:30:53+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401901045

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
bartgron (2025-06-10 20:56:20+00:00): Czy w Kapliczce powinno być "Święta Maryo" (tak jak jest dodane) czy "Święta Maryjo"?
AndreaDp271 (2025-06-10 13:39:41+00:00): too big area
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167432883
silversurfer83 (2025-06-10 19:19:55+00:00): Hallo Acki :)

mach sowas bitte nicht. Die Router brauchen immer eine Zeit, bis die aktuellen Daten auch verarbeitet sind. Du musst dich, was das angeht, etwas in Geduld üben. Danke
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167432941
Acki231 (2025-06-10 21:08:08+00:00): Hallo silversurfer83, 
danke für die Info. Ich habe jetzt gerade nochmal eine Route vom Golfplatz etwas oberhalb bis zum Hochsitz etwas links unterhalb des Minenplatzes berechnen lassen. Der Punkt Minenplatz wird aber immer noch umgangen. Also sind meine Änderungen dann bisher falsch gewesen oder dauert es 1 bis 2 Tage bis die Änderungen fruchten?
Gruß Acki.
silversurfer83 (2025-06-11 03:24:22+00:00): Moin

Die wichtige Frafe lautet: Von was lässt du die Route berechnen?
Acki231 (2025-06-11 05:36:23+00:00): Direkt in OSM. Profil ist Fussgänger. Wenn ich den Routenanweisungsdienst auf GraphHopper umstelle funktioniert es korrekt. Standartmäßig steht der Dienst auf OSRM.
silversurfer83 (2025-06-11 05:49:27+00:00): Ok.

Auch diese Router sind alles externe Dienste, die die Daten unterschiedlich schnell verarbeiten. Daher darfst du bei Routingfehlern nicht davon ausgehen, dass Änderungen umgehend beachtet werden.
literan (2025-06-10 20:14:17+00:00): Здравствуйте. а каков источник этих данных?
ollsarks (2025-07-28 17:02:30+00:00): Открытые источники + СМИ

https://realty.ria.ru/20220526/mtsd-5-1790809433.html

https://t.me/DtRoad/30211

https://www.mos.ru/upload/documents/files/4268/doc7596120498887.pdf
Bobbi123 (2025-06-10 09:11:20+00:00): Hallo, bitte deine gemachten Änderungen zu diesen ehem. Bahnlinien wieder unverzüglich zurücksetzen. Erstens läuft zu diesem Thema seit einiger Zeit eine Diskussion (siehe oben), wie man das Thema künftig nachhaltig und zur Zufriedenheit aller lösen kann und zweitens enthalten deine Änderungen diverse Fehler, die so nicht akzeptabel sind. Deine Änderungen sind hier sehr kontraproduktiv.
literan (2025-06-10 20:08:43+00:00): здесь одно общее здание, не нужен мультиполигон
Fizzie-DWG (2025-10-07 03:03:36+00:00): DWG revert - sockpuppet, poor quality, unknown sources

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172939623
Fizzie-DWG (2025-10-11 23:20:13+00:00): DWG revert, apparent sockpuppet, poor quality mapping, unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173158841
Patchanka (2025-10-14 06:49:22+00:00): bonjour
au vu du commentaire, si le terrain n'existe plus il faudrait carrément supprimer l'objet et pas simplement son nom. Dites-moi si vous avez besoin d'aide.
bonne journée
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-21 20:38:02+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12205400736/history has shop = mobile that was added in this edit
shop=mobile ? What is the meaning of that shop value? What kind of services or products are sold here? Is anything from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_for_key_%22shop%22 fitting? Maybe new value needs to be invented? Maybe this data is wrong and there is no shop here? Maybe it is not a shop but something else?
totera (2025-07-22 08:49:39+00:00): Fixed. I meant "mobile_phone," but "telecommunication" is even better. Thanks for reporting the error.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-22 16:37:06+00:00): Thanks!
APneunzehn74 (2025-08-21 12:01:17+00:00): Hallo, die beiden Mitfahrbänke hier in diesem Chargenset, sind das vielleicht https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dhitchhiking wie im Wiki beschrieben?
Grüße APneunzehn74
Stefan@MUC (2025-08-21 16:19:32+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis - ja, tatsächlich scheint der besser geeignet, kannte ich noch gar nicht. Ich hab's mit Changeset #170788920 angepasst.
bartgron (2025-06-10 21:19:28+00:00): Dlaczego ten budynek ma nazwę DPW? To jest dom czy jakaś firma?
syntex (2025-06-11 22:05:07+00:00): To chyba to? [https://diamondpaintings.pl] ale na stronie brak jakiejkolwiek informacji o lokalizacji
Fizzie-DWG (2025-10-11 23:20:14+00:00): DWG revert, apparent sockpuppet, poor quality mapping, unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173158841
kimo (2025-06-29 01:58:53+00:00): There is no visible signs of construction here. Should you have tagged as proposed instead of construction?
bartgron (2025-06-10 21:17:32+00:00): Czy na tej drodze jest znak (jakiś zakaz albo coś innego)?
Jeśli nie ma zakazu to droga nie powinna być private
DPW_pl (2025-06-11 06:55:26+00:00): Jest znak teren prywatny oraz tabliczka zakaz wjazdu. droga jest własnością prywatną nie gminną, a przechód oraz przejazd w teorii jest niedozwolony dla osób które takiej zgody nie posiadają w księdze wieczystej.
syntex (2025-06-11 22:00:19+00:00): Zgodnie z https://lesznowola.e-mapa.net droga nie posiada nazwy.
Tomas Straupis (2025-06-10 10:10:54+00:00): Laba diena. Nereikia keisti teisingai pažymėtų vandens telkinių. landuse=basin yra TEISINGAS žymėjimas. Jei nėra noro susipažinti su vietos žymėjimo susitarimais, t.y. jei nėra noro realiai ką nors gero padaryti, tai gal išvis neverta čia pas mus kaitalioti, vis tiek nieko naudingo nepadaroma.
Tomas Straupis (2025-06-10 10:11:57+00:00): Na ir building=ruins ir historic=ruins yra visiškai skirtingi dalykai. Kam gadinti gerus duomenis?
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-17 02:11:16+00:00): DWG revert - node with no details

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167718404
Rom1 (2025-06-12 07:38:12+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap, j'ai ajouté le défibrillateur selon https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12908988332
user_5359 (2025-06-11 09:33:21+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/635440949. What is the mean of the tags:
bld_permit = Not_Known
enum_name = Barnabas_Ogrima
land_status = Community
landuse = Residential=1
lga = Lokoja
occupier_s = Not_Known
photo = https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2305700459810701&focus=photo
power = Not_Known
prop_addre = Phase 2, Lokongoma
property_age = 0_5_years
property_area = 450_sqm
residentia = Detached_Bungalow
signage = Yes
street_nam = Phase 2
team = Team_A
water = Not_Known
zone = A2
?
no details provided here (2026-03-18 13:18:32+00:00): Is the whole woodland now called 'Tawd Vale Scout Camp' or can its usage be differentiated from the local woodland names Ten Acre Wood/Delf Wood/Box Plantation etc?
balint36 (2025-06-24 21:51:11+00:00): Széchenyi utca felől a Dr. Csányi László körútra jobbra (északra) kanyarodó útpálya nincs fizikálisan elválasztva a balra kanyarodótól. Van valami indok arra, hogy OSM-en el lett mégis választva?
Kilencfarku Macska (2025-06-27 07:21:11+00:00): Fel van festve forgalomtól elzárt területként. Úgy láttam, hogy bevett gyakorlat, hogy ezt kereszteződésekben ugyan úgy kezelik, mintha szigetként ki lenne emelve. Forgalmi szempontból úgy is működik. Lényegében kikerülöd a kereszteződést és a saját sávodba érkezel.
balint36 (2025-06-27 20:22:34+00:00): Én nem látom, hogy lenne ott forgalom elől elzárt terület. Azt meg nem tudom, hogyan érted, hogy a keresztezést kikerülöd. Ez nem olyan kereszteződés, hogy a jobbra kanyarodás szigettel le van választva, és egy macisajt szabályozza lámpa helyett. Úgyhogy jelenleg jobbra kanyarodáskor is telibe belehajtasz a kereszteződésbe, és nem saját sávba, hanem a Dr. Csányi László körút két sávjából (északnyugati irányban) egyikbe.

Külön vonallal pedig az osztottpályás utakat és a fizikálisan elválasztott elemeket jelöljük. Ha máshol is így láttad, ott is rossz. A DK-ÉK irányú ág ezért teljesen biztosan külön jelölendő, mert ott a járdasziget, és ott valóban elkerülöd a jelzőlámpás csomópontot.
balint36 (2025-06-27 20:23:03+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Way
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hungary/F%C5%91%C3%BAt
balint36 (2025-06-27 20:23:34+00:00): Illetve amire még nem figyeltél, de a buszok kapcsolatában is szakadásokat okoztál.
balint36 (2025-07-03 06:04:39+00:00): Köszönöm, hogy "megtiszteltél" a válasszal és a figyelemmel.
Kilencfarku Macska (2025-07-03 11:39:25+00:00): Szia,
Bocs, nem szándékosan nem válaszoltam eddig, az értesítések egy olyan e-mail címre jönnek, amit nem olvasok napi szinten (elég ritkán kommentelnek osm-en)
Kilencfarku Macska (2025-07-03 11:51:30+00:00): Tárgyra térve: korábbi válaszomnál simán azt hittem a Galcsek-Széchenyi kereszteződésről van szó (...az a listán eggyel fölötte lévő changeset, de többet nem válaszolok hajnalban kommenteket...)
Széchenyi - Csányi: Jogos az észrevétel. Anno ebben bizonytalan voltam, sajnos benne maradt, kijavítom.
Kilencfarku Macska (2025-07-03 11:55:20+00:00): Buszok: észrevettem a szakadást, meg azt is, hogy a buszállomásnál is pontatlanok az adatok (változott az elmúlt 1-2 évben a vonalszámozás). Végig kéne igazából csekkolni a kocsiállásokat az állomáson, hogy ténylegesen mi, honnan indul, milyen vonalszámmal...
Lostmonkey (2026-04-28 13:47:36+00:00): Er der fvst-forvirring omkring Anholt Bageri? Der er tilføjet bagerier med dette samme navn på henholdsvis Gennem Landet 48 og Østervej 6. Det på Gennem Landet har tilsyneladende identiske virksomhedsnumre som Anholt Gartneri, der er oprettet på samme adresse. Virker det ikke lidt underligt at to bagerier på øen, skulle bruge samme navn?
willkmis (2025-06-10 13:32:23+00:00): Hi, it looks like this bank is already mapped at this location! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12342520794. Please make sure to check that the location isn't already there when you add things to the map. Thanks!
~willkmis
VigilantPenguin (2025-06-11 07:36:45+00:00): Hi there, this is currently the only "neighborhood" in Seattle tagged place=quarter right now, were you planning on adding/converting more to that level?

Also, Cascade has always had a very wishy-washy definition in my mind, so I'm not positive using the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods maps is necessarily the best tactic here (personally I would just map as a node).