Not relevant precedent for Gulf of Mexico, if that's what you're referring to. In the case of Denali it was already an established name that was widely used locally in English (unlike the new official name for Gulf of Mexico). Also these days we have more options for tags including `nat_name` and `official_name`, so looking to an old tagging precedent in OSM isn't very relevant now.

👏

Maxheight of 0 makes no sense, so there some missing information here? I'm going to remove that tag for now.

😲

well done! 🏚 🚚🏠

Hello!
A lot of the reservoirs you added in this changeset aren't filled with water on most of the satellite layers. Should they be tagged with `intermittent=yes`?

👏🏻

Hi there, thank you for creating a polygon for Coney Island, but I think we _also_ need to have it as a node for labeling purposes. See for example Bath Beach and Gravesend, which each have both. You can also combine the node and the boundary together in a relation, like most of the Manhattan neighborhoods have: osm.org/relation/8398117

Hi there, I see you added a node for Koreatown, but there already existed a node at osm.org/node/150968103 with a much longer history. Maybe you could reuse that node instead? Also I haven't looked at the other neighborhood relations you added in this changeset, but you might want to check to see if any of those have duplicated nodes, too.

Hi there, should this relation for "Sto:lo Nation" osm.org/relation/8512693 be combined with "Stó:lō Tribal Council" osm.org/relation/8514116? It seems like they share some of the same parcels, but there are a lot of parcels that only exist in one or the other relation. Is this intentional?

Should this relation for Sto:lo Nation be the same as "Stó:lō Tribal Council" osm.org/relation/8514116? It looks like they share some parcels, but a lot of other parcels only exist in one or the other relation. Is this intentional?

Hello Arctic Gnome, should this relation for Stó:lō Tribal Council be combined with the other partly-overlapping relation for "Sto:lo Nation" osm.org/relation/8512693?

👍

💅

This changeset incorrectly added a `dam` tag to a feature that should be `waterway=riverbank`

Is "Belbay" some kind of railroad marker? It's not a locality name that I'm familiar with at all, as a long-time Bellingham resident.

Is this an official protected area? Or is it just the area where these people live? The Wikipedia page doesn't say it's protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayuu_people

Is start_date=0000 appropriate for these waterways? If that means "unknown" shouldn't we just remove the tag?

👍

Hello Robert,
I see you've been mapping clearcuts as `landuse=farmland` + `crop=timber`, and then later as `landuse=industrial` + `industrial=forest`. As far as I know, neither of these are standard tagging practices. The use of `landuse=industrial` in particular causes undesireable effects on the OSM renderer, showing up as either gray or pink depending on the zoom level. Have you considered trying `natural=scrub` + `man_made=clearcut` instead? That's probably what I'd do in these situations. See also: osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dclearcut