Hello mapper, thanks for adding the 1994 R Trail, but I noticed that you added duplicate segments of this trail along the highway in at least one spot. I tried to contact you regarding this in a message to you as well. Basically, it is better to create a single way that represents a trail OR a road. and then if you want to represent a trail that traverses many different ways then create a route relation. Here is a ling to the wiki: osm.wiki/Relation:route
What I'm concerned with is having duplicate way segments (two different way segments that share the same two nodes) that represent different things. This is generally frowned upon. I hope this helps - happy mapping.

Hi Ceichel, thanks for adding the speed limits. Unfortunately this changeset changed a boundary from a boundary to a highway. I think you added the speed limit to the wrong feature. I think we need to revert this change and add the speed limits to the existing roads.

Yes, I have noticed the same thing. Cities that have an "admin_center" node are incorrect. There is a tagging thread I started discussing this: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-September/062550.html

Hello st6132, I see you are mapping lots of golf courses - cool! Please consider using multipolygons when mapping complicated shapes that have inner holes like osm.org/way/1003195585. The way that you mapped this way is not valid because it intersects with itself. It would be better to map the perimeter of the rough with one line and make that the "outer" role of a relation and then map inner holes in that area and make those lines "inner" roles of the same relation.
Please see osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon
I hope that helps, and happy mapping.

This changeset seems to have broken the Harvard University relation. The removal of 947498343 has left the relation open. Would you mind reverting that change or fixing the Harvard University relation if you agree?

Hello, it looks like the way 480456046 was changed to a highway. I changed it back to a line for the boundary. Can you help to close this boundary? It looks like it is open here: osm.org/relation/7073701#map=17/23.75775/120.20305

Hi Wac_, when posted as a private road that has public access it is best to use ownership=private. (osm.wiki/Key:ownership)
From the access=private wiki: "Privately owned road with public access may be tagged like any other road with public access - without access=* tag, or with the explicit access=permissive."
Unless you are saying that this is ported with a "no access" or "no trespassing" sign?

You may want to read more about tags here: osm.wiki/Contribute_map_data
Also, where as the removal of some trails that are not to be used might be warranted, it might be better to add a tag to trails to specify that they are private. access=private or access=no
See this link: osm.wiki/Key:access

Some streams and rivers duplicated in this changeset. I will probably remove them since the existing rivers have for data.

I just found this too. Since the added streams and rivers have fewer tags (no names) than the existing rivers I would vote for remove the newer ones.

Yes, I had a discussion on slack about this and it was agreed that it was a judgment call between the two (reservoir and lake) since it was a lake that was significantly changed in size when they added the dam. This was precisely the issue I flagged because I wasn't sure. I should probably change it back to a lake since lake is the more precise term. I will change it back since the GNIS labeled everything as a reservoir. Thanks for pinging me about it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102148557

Ah - no problem. easy enough to fix. I was just curious.

Is there a reason why way 889116025 was created so that it overlaps a segment of 663666549? I'm just trying to understand what you were trying to do here.

Can you please help to figure out why this changeset added 833681139, which is a duplicate of 833657455 that was added as part of your changeset:88895154.