Done in changeset #168420335 ! https://osmcha.org/changesets/168420335
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168325430

Yeah, seems like it was added 7 years ago in changeset #62253586 , alongside numerous other area streets.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168375287

Thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168375077

Ah great, thanks! One more thing I can check off from my near-term task queue. You planning on doing Turner Street NE too in the immediate future, or want me to take care of that? I wouldn't want to duplicate effort or make conflicting changes. Thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168325430

Seems like StreetComplete is bugging out here—all the modified ways were *already* tagged with both sidewalk=separate and sidewalk:both=separate, and all SC did was remove the (valid, as a graceful fallback for consumers that don't have full support for the newer/more detailed sidewalk:side) sidewalk=separate tag. I've reported the error to StreetComplete: https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6378
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166327264

I was really wondering about that one too...just hadn't quite summed up the gumption to do something about it quite yet, though I was planning to in the near future—thanks for taking care of it! Initially I thought they might be trees that some mapper decided were informal bicycle parking spots, but looking at the history looks like a ton of stuff (>1000 objects) were added in the changeset and it was probably just a copy-paste mistake.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168245492

Looks good; thanks for the fix!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168118926

Hey Jake, thanks for the on the ground survey and updates on the recently reconstructed NE campus areas! Just a quick note—the parking lot perimeter way should be left untagged service=parking_aisle, as aside from a small portion it is not a parking aisle itself, and is rather the perimeter of the lot and main service way for navigating around the lot as a whole, between parking aisles. Per the wiki and the corresponding approved standards ( osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle ):

Not every roadway within a parking lot is a parking aisle. Examples are:
* Forms the "trunk" or perimeter of the parking lot, connecting multiple parking aisles – use highway=service without service=* instead. There may be parking spaces on either side, but the roadway's primary purpose is to get drivers to another part of the parking lot.
* Roadway does not have any parking bays itself.

I expect to do another pass through this area in a few days and can fix it then, though feel free to do so before I get to it. Thanks!

No worries, it happens! I make enough mistakes as it is on desktop even with an extensive safety net of JOSM, Osmose, OSMI, KR and custom validator rules that I don't trust myself to edit on mobile, hehe

RIP that Moe's. Honestly, a bit surprised it lasted as long as it did. I hardly ever saw anyone in there, even when the Cellar, the Chipotle up the street and the Qdoba in Lavery Hall would have lines out the door.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167933228

Hey, looks like the `name` was deleted; was that intentional? Judging from the WiFi name that was added, seems to me like it might not be?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167933333

I'm also a little confused about why the parking way around Wendy's was classified as a `driveway` rather than the previous `parking_aisle` or generic `service`, which seems inconsistent with both the wiki and the consensus its based on, and the tagging of the other similar ways in this mapping area.

Per the lede of the wiki for the former tag, osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway , the defining feature of a `service=driveway` is it "leads toward an entrance to a specific destination", whereas the primary purpose of this way is to provide access to parking around the restaurant, and secondarily to the drive-through. Furthermore, none of three primary usage scenarios are close to either of these purposes (direct access to a house/garage carport, space for passenger pickup/dropoff, loading dock access), while it states not to use it on:

> Paths in or around a parking lot (amenity=parking) are tagged with highway=service without service=* on the entrance and exit ways, as well as any way that forms the "trunk" or perimeter of the lot, connecting multiple parking aisles (service=parking_aisle).

Likewise, the wiki page for the approved and implemented `service=parking_aisle` osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle gives specific examples of restaurants with drive-throughs closely resembling this one, stating that they should be either mapped as either `parking_aisle`s or as two separate ways (as done here), one with `service=drive-through` and the other as `service=parking_aisle` (or, presumably, just `service`). It also re-iterates that higher-class ways within a parking lot that provide through connectivity (entry/exit, connect multiple parking aisles) should be tagged as just `service`, while the only relevant mentioned use case of `driveway` inside/near a parking lot is

> Primarily provides space for picking up and dropping off passengers

Given that and your evident experience, I'm curious as to the reason for the present tagging, particularly as I plan to do another pass adding and improving service ways in downtown Blacksburg.

Hello again! Thanks for the roadway hierarchy improvements—that's something I mostly haven't touched for existing ways except in cases where it seemed fairly unambiguous that the existing classification wasn't right, although after several passes I'd been considering doing some reclassification in this area.

While the other classifications make sense, I am curious, however, about classifying Church Street as `residential` rather than unclassified (or the existing `tertiary`)—per my previous mapping in that area, it has no or almost no residential buildings/uses along its full length, and the landuse areas immediately around it (which, full disclosure, I mapped) are all non-residential. Is that just a misclick, or is there a reason for that?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156297350

Hi Joseph! Thanks for the fixes and improvements along Industrial Park Road—it definitely needed some love; I was just focused on other areas at the moment and didn't have time to dig into it.

I do have a question about your changes to the slip road/turn channel between Industrial westbound and Research Center northbound from a `highway=secondary_link` to a `highway=secondary` with a `name`. My understanding per the wiki was that the former was more correct per the lede of the [Highway link article](osm.wiki/Highway_link) as well as that of [secondary_link](osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dsecondary_link) article), as it is a slip road/turn channel between the former and the latter, while the "main line" of Research Center continues south to the intersection and then becomes a `motorway_link` to 460. It also appears to be inconsistent with the link classification used on the turn channel to Industrial Park westbound and the motorway link it becomes.

As you're a highly experienced mapper, I'd appreciate your insight here on the reason for the classification, particularly as I plan to return to continue mapping the CRC area soon. Thanks!

Hi Philip, and welcome (back) to OpenStreetMap!

Given you've presumably verified this business has closed, overall the change looks good. However, make sure to remove other tagging specific to the closed business—for example, `brand` was removed, but `brand:wikidata` was not. You can also remove `amenity`, `cuisine`, `diet:vegetarian`, `opening_hours` and (possibly) `phone`, as they no longer make sense given the POI they describe is no longer here.

One other note—instead of deleting the `name` entirely, you can also move it to `old_name`, which may be useful for both future mappers and map consumers to understand the history of the place.

Thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156195324

Backstory of how this most unfortunate blunder came to be: While performing a tricky and delicate extraction of a group of existing changes into a logically separate changeset, I accidentally forgot to overwrite the comment from the previous changeset, frustratingly leading to it very unfortunately duplicating the comment from the changeset rather than correctly expressing the very explicitly distinct nature of the changes (the reason I'd separated them in the first place).

Changeset comment INCORRECT; should be:

Add/update service roads, parking lots, foot/cycleways, buildings and fencing from newly-rebuilt Briarwood Pool area in the Hethwood community of Blacksburg, VA.

Looks good, thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155933922

Great, thanks!

Thanks for the update. Shouldn't `opening_date` be preserved as `start_date` rather than deleting valid information from the map?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155879844