Thanks for making this change. Welcome to OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91465040

Sorry about that, @woodpeck. The Copper Country State Forest isn't rendering in Carto and so I was aligning its tagging with the other Michigan State Forests that *do* render, like Escanaba osm.org/relation/1976420
In addition to removing landuse=forest, Version #2 of this relation changed from type=multipolygon to type=boundary. My hunch was that change may have broken rendering of this state forest.

The wiki at osm.wiki/Relation:boundary only talks about administrative boundaries, but I now see that osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area does list type=boundary as allowed for protected_areas.

I guess this relation has some other problem, though validation didn't find any errors.

Hi Necessarycoot, I noticed that in a few places such as osm.org/node/7808378551 and osm.org/edit?node=7808378549#map=20/44.10506/-72.73082 you've added a ford crossing where there is no evidence of a ford (driving through the stream osm.wiki/Tag:ford%3Dyes ) in the satellite imagery. In this region *most* stream crossings are culverts (metal or concrete tunnels) or bridges and fords are usually only seen on farm/forestry tracks. If you can't determine whether there is a ford, culvert, or a bridge due to tree cover or poor imagery, its better to leave the warning unresolved than add possibly-wrong details.

Thanks, Adam

Please don't add nodes with ford=yes simply to avoid validation error due to roads crossing streams. All of the supposed stream-crossing "fords" in this changeset are actually culverts under the roadway, not fords. When editing roadways if you cannot positively identify the type of crossing, please just leave the warning in place rather than adding a crossing type.

Forgot to mention that I also sourced the Colby Hill ref=TH-13 and ownership=public from VCGI road centerline data: https://geodata.vermont.gov/datasets/VTrans::vt-road-centerline/data?geometry=-73.067%2C44.133%2C-72.973%2C44.144

Hi @ppjj, I just want to file a note that I don't believe that a consensus has been reached on the "proclamation boundaries" for national forests. While they aren't sign-posted on the the ground, they are as verifiable as other governmentally decreed boundaries (like state/county lines).

I'm not proposing that this boundary removal be reverted at this time, but recognise that a tagging scheme isn't yet solidified. This boundary may be appropriate to restore, but as a boundary=national_park or other tagging that doesn't include the incorrect protect_class=6.

On the affirmative side, removing this outer boundary makes the parcel-level rendering MUCH more easy to see and interpret, especially when near the proclamation boundary. :-)

Cheers,
Adam

("don't exist" should be "don't apply")

Hi @JaredBest, if you drew the buildings based on looking at the satellite imagery, then no, the Import Guidelines don't exist. If however you were to load the building footprints into JOSM from an external data source (Microsoft building footprints, State of NY building footprints, etc), then they would apply.

The description is not for advertising copy. Please locate business POIs at the actual location -- this looks to be placed in the roadway.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84837488

Hi waderoe, thanks for your contributions to OSM. I'm not sure if this was intended, but this driveway got added to a "site" relation which doesn't have much effect. You should probably remove the relation. Here's more info on site relations: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Relation:site&uselang=en-US
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/79260777

This changeset seems to have accidentally modified New York State in the US from a boundary to a road. This is invalid. A subsequent changeset has fixed this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81584712

Looks good now. :-) While there may be some routing applications that can navigate over areas, connecting linear highway=* ways ensures the best compatibility.

Hi iggujja, I'm not super local to this area, but from the satellite imagery it looks like Bonnyvale Road actually goes through this new road segment you added and the old alignment is now a dead-end? Is this something you can confirm? Whichever segment is continuing through to Guilford Center road should be the same classification as the rest of Bonnyvale Road, not highway=service.

Best, Adam
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81090699

Hi Schmmidtty, thanks for all of your work mapping Milton. In looking at this edit and park area it looks like you've mapped it as several adjacent and overlapping park areas, rather than one large park area with the park name and then smaller areas for playing fields, etc. Are there actually multiple parks here or could this be cleaned up into one Bombardier Park that has the full outer boundary of the park?

Best,
Adam
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81189562

Hi Cody, thanks for contributing to OSM! Please note that areas (such as parking areas) are not routable, so when the paths are disconnected from the service road, hiking/biking directions will try to rout around this area and won't be able to connect through.

To fix this, extend the service road all the way through the parking area so that it connects to the paths at the trailhead node. Example: osm.org/edit#map=19/43.84997/-73.05758

An alternate way to achieve this if the trailhead is a little back from the parking area would be to extend the service road through most of the parking area, then add a little stub of path connecting the trailhead to the service road in the parking area.

Happy mapping!
Adam
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81241983

Hi andrepoiy, Just this past year the city has restarted its plans to build out these parts of I-189:
https://vtdigger.org/2019/08/25/decades-later-champlain-parkway-construction-finally-nears/

As well, even if construction had been abandoned or on hold indefinitely, there still is on-the-ground concrete in these locations. The construction area is commonly accessed by pedestrians, so I think that leaving it as highway=construction is appropriate.

This is a bay of Lake Champlain and not a separate body of water. You should fix the overall Lake shoreline rather than adding a bay as a separate water body.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81466738

Thanks for making this name update!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81520771

Hi @Westmore, welcome back to OSM. I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but it looks like you created a new relation osm.org/relation/10755108 for Balance Rock Road in addition to the way for the road. If you don't have a reason for adding the relation, it can probably be deleted to simplify things.

Cheers,
Adam
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81521170

Hi @eaboyce, thanks for editing OpenStreetMap and welcome to the community of editors!

I haven't been to this site and the satellite imagery doesn't show this road yet, but if Gin Lane is primarily an access road to the distillery, then it should be categorized as a "Service" road, likely with type "driveway". Due to historical reasons in the British road network, the "Unclassified" road level is actually for roads that are *more* important than residential. See osm.wiki/Key:highway#Roads for details.

Let me know if you have any further questions and happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81689600