hi there Rove, watch out for you changeset comments, here you didn't add any path around the Generoso
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=56579882

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

hi there, the correct tag for those areas is natural=water + water=pond, please replace that tag

Hi there, welcome to osm.
I'm having a look at some of your edits and I'm finding some suspicious objects like this park. This is a road, there's no park here.
Please make sure you read this page osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers before making any other edit, thanks!

Hi there Oof, does this park actually exists?
osm.org/way/31151603

Hi again, great part of this park looks like a parking lot, could you be so kind to increase a bit the park area accuracy?
osm.org/way/562294159
Thanks

Hi there Alan, do you mind if I ask you to double check this park location? Looking at ESRI Imagery I can't see any park here. It looks like there are just a few buildings here.
osm.org/way/563157164
Thanks!

ciao, grazie per la risposta, non ne ho idea, non conosco RawEdit

Hi there, I'm sorry to say that but it looks like most of your edits brought in some kind of vandalism.
I'm going to double check your edits and try fixing some of those messy objects

please also make sure you read this page osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
Feel free to get in touch in case you need some help
Thanks

hi there, watch out those objects you added look all messed up, what is that line with no tags?
osm.org/way/563137561

hi there, this as well is a amenity=parking, not a park.
Please make sure you use the correct tag

hi there, welcome to osm!
watch out this one looks like a soccer pitch, you should tag it as leisure=pitch.
Is it a pitch or a park then?
thanks

ciao, benvenuto su osm!
Sei sicuro della presenza di questo parco? da una breve ricerca non ho trovato nulla con quel nome.
Ci sono strutture per bambini nel parco?

I forgot to answer your last question. Well, look at this point on the aerial imagery osm.org/node/5417574482
I'm pretty sure the sidewalks here allows pedestrians to walk down on the road, there's no grass separating the sidewalk from the road, I do tend to think that engineers designing that sidewalk built it so that people can cross the road here, am I wrong? I'm from Europe and I'm not very familiar with US sidewalks, so I might be wrong.
Do you live here? do you use those sidewalks? when you find yourself at that point what do you do if you have to go south along 320?

When I first wrote you (few days ago) I wasn't actually talking about this crossing like the one with Brunley Court, I was talking about those near the church instead:
osm.org/way/442620337 and the other two just south of the church.
Those three have to be connected with those service roads going into the parking lot.
Thanks for your help!

Hi there, yeah, those two methods of mapping sidewalks work as well with cycleways. If you look at the osm help forum website you should find some discussions about the whole sidewalk thing, I mean, someone likes to have sidewalks on the map, someone else find them useless and reckon them as a problem as they contribute to clog the map render (there should have been a never-ending discussion about that on the talk mailing list in the last few years). I think those sidewalks in Washington are well done, any decent routing service for pedestrian should be able to show a sidewalks only route as they all look well connected to the road network around them, which is definitely a nice thing.
About the "avoid connecting shapes since that makes them hard to move later" and "do not map anything that isn't actually there". Well, the second one is the golden rule, we have to add only real objects, end of the story. Sidewalks are real, so you could decide to add them to the map, zebra crossing and stuff like that are real as well, so you should connect those sidewalks when they do cross a road. The first one instead sounds to me a bit generic ad likely to be misinterpreted. I mean, when talking about areas/shapes I do tend to agree, but talking about ways I do definitely disagree (roads, trails, sidewalks, rivers are all “ways”, buildings, lakes, pitches, parks,… are almost always “areas”). Connecting roads at junctions/crossings is another golden rule, the same works for trails, rivers, sidewalks,... (we have specific crossing tags, see the highway=crossing wiki page). I’m pretty sure that “avoid connecting shapes since that makes them hard to move later” refers to elements like this one: osm.org/way/414033716, which doesn’t share its boundary nodes with the roads running around it. Connecting it wouldn’t be correct for multiple reason, I do agree with that then.

cool, thank you sir!
cheers

Hi there, welcome to osm! Please keep in mind that this is not your private map so you are not allowed to add fictional object because you'd like to have some pokemon spawn near where you live.
Also make sure you read this one before you edit the map again.
osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
You should also use proper changeset comments, here you added a pond and a generic area, nothing more than that.
Thanks

anzi, prima ne approfitto io per chiederti una mano.
Giorni fa ho aggiunto questo tratto osm.org/way/559411608, a breve non ho modo di passare, mi confermi che è a doppio senso?
grazie

nessun problema, io conosco un pochino la zona, se pensi possa servirti un parere o una mano a fare qualcosa scrivimi pure.
Ciao

hi there, watch out, this pitch looks a bit messed up, do you mind fixing it up?
osm.org/way/156279445
thanks