Looks like something went wrong with addr:city and addr:state for osm.org/node/5668621306. I see this is a pretty big changeset, but maybe you want to make sure all the other imported data was good?

Hi! Please make sure you've got the right golf course in the right state before you add the address information. Thanks!

Hi! This update was a follow up to a project to add missing named summits in Alaska using GNIS data using automation to speed up manual review. See osm.wiki/User:B1tw153/recoGNISer. But GNIS data isn't always right. In this case, I was able to identify a more likely location for the summit from the description and 3DEP data and USGS agreed with the correction I proposed.

Nice work on reopening the road! If you happen to have the geometry for the detour and information about the speed and weight restrictions, you might add that.

Could I ask for the reference you used to change this name back to Squaw Valley? Because when I check USPS, they have it as Yokuts Valley and they're only permitting the old name to be used for the transition to the new name.

Thank you for your recent changeset reviews and for the kind comments! I really appreciate them!

This changeset was early in the development of the GNIS matching software: https://github.com/b1tw153/recogniser.

The source and gnis:feature_class tags were manually added as we were debugging the software and can be safely removed.

Hi! I hear you've been working on moving the historical alignments of Route 66 over to OHM. This is great stuff and will make a great addition to the historical map. When you get to a point that you're happy with the migration, it would be nice to remove the historical features that no longer exist from OSM. If you'd like help with that at some point, just let me know!

Sorry it took me a while to get back to this. I'm interested in the things in the super relation for the historic alignments of US 80 that are no longer roads.

relation(8534013);
(._; >>;) -> .old80;
way.old80[!highway];
out count;
way.old80["abandoned:highway"];
out count;

The actual historic route is osm.org/relation/9712655. This other stuff looks like it belongs on OHM.

Ah! Sorry! I didn't see how big that changesets was. This one: osm.org/relation/8534013

Substantial portions of this relation include former highway alignments that haven't existed for more than 50 years. Does it really still belong in OSM?

I'm not sure why the ethnographic study you linked to is relevant. It doesn't seem to say anything about local hydrology. Lots of places get muddy when it rains. We don't tag them as lakes. The natural=water + intermittent=yes tags are not conventional for dry lakes in this area and I strongly object to their use here.

I disagree with the tag change. I don't think natural=water + intermittent=yes captures the nature of this feature. In general, I don't agree that anything that was once ephemerally wet should be tagged with natural=water. For example, should we tag any parking lot that floods when it rains as natural=water + intermittent=yes?

Hi! I recently edited a few ways that you had tagged with natural=coastline;bare_rock. Normally, separating multiple tag values with a semicolon is fine, but natural=coastline is special. (See osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#Small_islands.) I wanted to let you know so that you can avoid problems with the natural=coastline tag in the future.

Le chemin/137443882 avec border_type=baseline est une frontière politique et peut ne pas correspondre à des caractéristiques naturelles. C'est probablement une bonne idée de cartographier le natural=reef séparément. Actuellement, le récif recouvre les îles et le lagon. Ce n'est probablement pas ce que vous vouliez. Essayez plutôt d'utiliser une relation multipolygone pour construire le récif.

Je viens de regarder de plus près la relation/6082214. Dans sa configuration actuelle, la superficie de l'atoll ne comprend que le récif et exclut les îles et le lagon. Je pense qu'il serait peut-être préférable que la relation inclue soit uniquement les îles, soit l'ensemble du récif, des îles et du lagon. Quelle serait la bonne manière de construire cette relation ?

Désolé, il a fallu si longtemps pour résoudre ce problème. J'ai ajouté la relation/16710916 avec la balise natural=reef pour représenter la zone du récif excluant les zones de la terre et du lagon. J'essayais d'empêcher le rendu du récif au-dessus des îles, ce qui pose actuellement un problème avec la balise natural=reef sur way/210166641. Peut-être pouvons-nous nous mettre d'accord sur une manière de résoudre ce problème ?

Oui, les nouvelles îles doivent être ajoutées à la relation/6082214. Je m'occupe de ça. Merci de l'avoir attrapé !

This changeset removed the place=locality tag from node/88316592 but left the name=Emigrant Junction tag. NPS and others do refer to this area as Emigrant Junction. E.g., https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/news/stovepipe-wells-fonsi.htm, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/rusticarch/part6.htm. Should we restore the place=locality tag?

Pour cartographier correctement le récif, il faut une relation avec un polygone externe et avec les îles et le lagon comme membres internes. Voici quelques exemples : https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1DTq

Assurez-vous également que les éléments du littoral sont membres de toutes les relations naturelles et administratives appropriées.

Soyez prudent lorsque vous modifiez des éléments du littoral. Ces éléments sont membres de plusieurs relations de limites naturelles et administratives et leur suppression peut rompre les relations.

Veuillez également ne pas utiliser la balise de nom pour les descriptions.