Looks good!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110474165

Added this back

osm.org/way/977933839

osm.org/way/977933838

Thank you. I have added the sections where it is a regular lane, near Small Street, and a Sharrow over the bridge. I will restore the protected lane per your description here! Have any photos of the facility? I want to get down there and check it out.

OK. Thanks for the response. The way to add this information is not to convert these to marked crossings. That information goes on a separate point, where the crosswalk intersects the street. Can you try and remove the lights again where applicable? You can add highway=stop to the intersection points that are now governed by a stop sign instead.

This changeset looks good generally. I fixed the spelling of a park by removing abbreviations.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109950220

According to the SBY GIS site, the sections along Division St are Sharrow only. Is the website wrong here? https://salisbury.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c10e82df2db74447a7e997cac0aa2f63

Hello there! Did you happen to see my other comments on some of these changesets? We waited 10 days before starting the rollback process. If this is really installed, and it sounds like it is, that is great, but there is no imagery or other data that can be used to verify this. What side of the roadway is the lane one? is it two way? are pedestrians allowed? There is a method to add these sort of things to OSM, I'd be happy to help with.

This looks good. The waterfront areas added are indeed city owned per https://opendata-salisbury.hub.arcgis.com/apps/city-owned-lands/explore
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109947572

Rolled this back in full by adding the cycleway right on the street osm.org/changeset/110472747
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109947340

This changeset removed a crosswalks and traffic signals where there was no need to do so, and generally undid previous mappers work. There are a few useful edits here but they should be done individually, rather than in a big changeset like this. osm.org/changeset/110472378
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109947187

This changeset is generally good. The new cycleway is in the MDOT dataset. It should be unabbreviated and unneeded crossings removed.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109946744

This changeset is mostly good, but some attention should be put into the roundabout added south of Beaverdam Creek
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109946410

Rolled this back in osm.org/changeset/110471841
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109945618

This changeset introduced a few proposed lanes that haven't been installed. I rolled those ones back.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109945329

Rolled back most of the new lane added along Carroll because it is marked as proposed by the official SBY map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109944551

No park found here. Reverted in full osm.org/changeset/110467699
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109944041

Rolled back the cycleway update in this changeset by adding a shared lane to Division Street here: osm.org/changeset/110467395
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109943923

Hello again, I want to help fix some of this bike infrastructure you've added here to OSM standards. Do you have some time to chat about these, virtually? I think we could figure out what goes where.

Now, speaking of this edit, I think it would be fine to make the name "Bureau of Land Management - San Luis Field Office" though it is a mouthful. However, I must strongly advise against abbreviating the name. That is likely how "Tom" found this area in order to delete it. Acronyms run against OSM standard practices because a computer algorithm can easily abbreviate something, but abbreviations are hard.

You do sound cranky, but I get it! I have been mapping and importing protected areas on the east coast for years and am frustrated by what I call "landuse mappers" that have throwaway accounts and swoop in to untag major land reservations I've spent hours working on. I get it, seriously! That is why I support the well documented US PL Tagging schema, in defense of those edits. The landuse mappers are often of a different worldview where parks and nature reserves are not massive 10K+ acre areas but rather tiny parks in urban centers (or should I say 'centre'). The standard is not convoluted, it considers all of what OSM has to offer, and various ways people tag these federal places all over the US. Please join us in discussing this further. Most of this conversation happens in the #protectedlands channel in OSM US Slack. I stopped following the mailing lists in the 2014 ish era but stay heavily involved in the project through Slack, discord, and other outlets. There are a lot of enlightened people working on these problems.

Speaking of Slack, the way I found myself here in Colorado was via a request Andy Townsend posted on the Slack (see below).

Andy Townsend 1 day ago
Following a DWG request I've reverted http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=9197995 . If there's a more that needs changing there osm.org/changeset/99092967 may be the place to start. (edited)

elliottplack:maryland: 1 day ago
on it

elliottplack:maryland: 1 day ago
osm.org/relation/9197995 tagged in accordance with osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands#Bureau_of_Land_Management

Andy Townsend 1 day ago
It'd probably be worth pointing JOSM's validator at it as I suspect that might be some multipolygon issues that need looking at.

elliottplack:maryland: 1 day ago
Yes I noticed some of those. I’m not sure how to fix. It is the issues when two right angle corners share a node.