Hi! A couple of the islands in this changeset (ways 1202803575 and 1202803576) aren't rendering right now because they have semicolons in the natural=* value along with "coastline". The natural=coastline tag is special and can't have semicolons in it. You might make a separate congruent way with natural=bare_rock to get everything to render.

Also, it looks like this node is missing a primary tag. The address, description, and name aren't enough to map something on OSM. You also need to have a tag identifying the type of business.

Hi! Thanks for contributing information about your business to OSM. It looks like you got the node in the wrong place. It should probably be a few blocks north. Also, you might use the rest of the addr: schema to correctly tag the address. But, more importantly, the description value is not verifiable and looks like spam. If that can't be fixed, it should be removed. Let me know if you're able to correct it or if you need help!

Both USFS GIS data and the USFS Visitor Map show the continuation of FS 54 through this property as being publicly accessible. Were you able to verify from information on the ground that the gate is locked or signed to restrict public access?

Hi! I just cleaned up some of the alignment along Kelso Cima Road and replaced the line that you had redrawn. That was a while ago. I wondered if you figured out how to move existing highways or if that's something you wanted help with.

Ah. I'm sorry to hear that happened. Thanks for correcting the tag. Let's hope that the pub is now friendlier to everyone, especially since it seems to have a good selection of ales! Cheers!

Some time back in changeset 102871214, you added an lgbt_friendly=no tag to this pub, now changed to lgbtq=no. The guidance on the Wiki (osm.wiki/Key:lgbtq) suggests not to use tags of this type. Was there a verifiable source you used to determine that this tag was appropriate?

As the consensus in the Community Forum discussion about this feature was that the natural_2=landslide tag contained valuable information, I'll be restoring that tag.

If you'd like to add a fixme tag to the feature, please do.

Also, please be careful when you're cleaning up tags that you do not delete potentially valuable information without discussing it with the mappers involved or the broader community first.

Thanks, jumbanho. I think it would be good to discuss this topic more broadly, so I've started a thread about it on the Community Forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-minority-owned-and-women-owned-businesses/101915

Thanks! Hope you enjoyed your holiday!

That doesn't sound right to me. I would be interested to see the previous discussions you mentioned. Would you be kind enough to share any links to them you might have?

Thanks for the explanation. If you agree the tag should be removed, I think that was the right thing to do.

Also, thanks for working on mapping natural features like this. I do some similar work in the US, and I'm happy to see that the map has more features like this!

We just had a discussion about this in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/various-landslide-tags-replaced-with-hazard-landslide/101466 after another user replaced the natural_2=landslide tag with hazard=landslide. Those two tags have different meanings and purposes, as I'm sure you can see in the Wiki.

I agree that the natural_2 key is not ideal, but if you weren't able to verify the nature of this feature using a reliable source before making the change, I would propose to revert it.

Many people in the US would consider the information about latino-owned and women-owned businesses to be important information that the owners would share with the community. Why did you feel that this would be private information that should be removed?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139181328

The tag that was deleted translates to "import=yes". By deleting it, it seems we have lost some important information. Shall we restore this tag?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138983503

How were you able to determine that this feature is not a landslide?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139181247

I think it would be good to get some broader community discussion about the replacement of tags for rock glaciers with tags for moraines, so I've created a topic for the discussion in the OSM Community Forum. If you'd like to discuss the changes, this would be a good place to do that: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rock-glaciers-retagged-as-moraines/101589
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138316124

I think it would be good to get some broader community discussion about the replacement of various tags for the areas of landslides with hazard=landslide, so I've created a topic for the discussion in the OSM Community Forum. If you'd like to discuss the changes, this would be a good place to do that: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/various-landslide-tags-replaced-with-hazard-landslide/101466

I notice that you have changed all instances of geological=volcanic_lava_flow to geological=volcanic_lava_field. This pattern of wholesale change to tags without discussion with previous mappers or the rest of the community concerns me. I have started a forum discussion about this set of changes. Would you like to add your perspective?

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/lava-field-versus-lava-flow/101382
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138314381

I think there's a better way to tag these features and the features in similar changesets which were tagged geological=rock_glacier. The more appropriate tags might be natural=glacier + glacier:type=rock as documented here osm.wiki/Key:glacier:type
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138316124