Same question as my other comment for w1171948712

Sorry Baloo, I'm trying to see where I made a mistake. Unless you already fixed it... The only ways that the 5th floor is attached to are other ways tagged as layer=5 and then to way w592497075 which is layer=4 but is labeled as an incline (that connects to the 5th floor at the end). Don't we want the 4th floor to be connected to the 5th floor at that point?

Hi tmp85, I'm going to try to fix your edit. Is there any way that hikers can legally get from the road to the trail behind the building in question?

I changed the area that you mapped from a building to a "landuse=industrial". I hope that is cool. I also mapped the apparent two buildings in that area. Let me know if that was a mistake.

Hello Omarshamayleh. You seem to have marked the town area as a building and marked it as a hotel?? I don't understand why you made this change. I'm going to change the area back to a town as this is definitely not a hotel.

This changeset duplicated a bunch of houses. I am currently deleting the duplicates.

Hello Dvlpmnt, I just wanted to point out that the solor pannel in this changeset were tagged as building=roof, but I think they should be location=roof. I was just look at this wiki page: osm.wiki/Tag:generator:source%3Dsolar#Rooftop_Solar_Panels

I'm gonna go ahead and change them, but let me know if you disagree and I can change them back.

Thanks for all the work on the interior of Ablah Library! Just a couple requests:
1) could you please review osm.wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging and the examples listed? Please note that walls are lines, not areas. Also, walls for rooms should be connected and simplified a bit from how you mapped them.
2) The use of amenity=chair seems like it might be misused here... Please note that amenity=chair is a chair that doesn't move (is fixed in one place) see: osm.wiki/Tag:amenity=chair

Hi @mavl, it looks like this series of reverts left some nodes that should have been deleted instead moved to location 0,0. See node 10695037232. The history looks like it was created as part of a changeset that was reverted, but then after the revert was reverted the node moved to 0,0 instead of being deleted on the next revert. I'm going to manually delete these node if that is ok

Ooops. Looks like you misspelled Alternate(aiternate) on all of these. Would you mind fixing them?

Hello Paul, Can ask why you are naming all of these ways "unclassified"? Is this normal for this area? Just currious.

And relation 8058662

I'm also going to retag 1827095 that you changed to a building.

EndOfLine, you changed relation 14225466 from a boundary to a building type. I'm going to change it back, but just wanted to let you know as I don't think you meant to do it.

OK, got it. Ya, I had asked ivanbranco in a different changeset about this too. Not a huge deal - I too don't see the point in these 'sites' but was just curious - thanks.

Hello Supaplex,
I noticed that you created a relation with only one thing in it. Generally relations with only one member are not necessary. Is there a reason to have relation 14902864? It is a relation with only one member and it is a part of another relation. It seems that the way could just be a member of the top relation and remove 14902864?

Hello, mcliquid,
I was just wondering why you changed this to a 'site'? The wiki says that sites must also have a tag to indicate what type of site. This used to be a locality... is that still appropriate. Thanks - just curious.

Hello gnlpfth,
I was wondering if you could explain why you changed this to a 'site'? From what I read on the wiki (osm.wiki/Relation:site) this should also have some kind of tag describing what type of site it is? I just don't understand why these would be grouped this way in the first place so I was curious.

Hi Necessarycoot72, I just renamed the way that goes over the bridge back to Vermont Route 102 since the bridge area exists with the same name. As I understand it, the way that goes over the bridge should have the name of the road and the bridge area should have the name of the bridge. If you disagree then let me know and I will change it back (or you can revert it, but I'd like to know in case this is a rule that I'm not reading right)

Cool - just wanted to make sure that your initial effort was addressed. If it was a mistake then concider the matter closed. Thanks again.