I have a friend who lives nearby and made a comment about how it had been expanded recently. No clue if the trails are still accurate though Feel free to make further updates if I missed something :)

I uploaded before we took off for Mexico City. Looks like you got a couple of things I missed though. I wasn't traveling alone so I had other things to tend to besides out how to tag some things :)

My girlfriend ended up holding my phone for this stretch as we were headed to La Fiesta for dinner :)

I think the stretch north of the stadium still needs to be tweaked too since they put in more turning lanes and extended the median for some of it. Haven't had time to get that done yet.

Well I don't know for sure either... I'm going off of this GitHub issue which has comments on both sides: https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/3592

But it seems like if it IS used, it is as a fallback if nothing else is available.

What is the status of the destination:street tag? Last I heard it didn't have great support in navigation apps so this exit may no longer give correct instructions, depending on the app.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 67065915.

I think I mostly added surface tags along the roads I was riding on which in this case was the highway that intersects this road. But it looks like I did split this way and removed some TIGER tags during my edit which I suppose took it out of your "unsurveyed" classification. And for the record "some rubbish dirt track" can be a fun gravel ride... if you have the right bike :)

It'll have to amuse itself with shadow puppets in the setting sun I guess. Someone did a county data import in Topeka a while ago that could have been much more useful than it was if they had asked for more review and guidance :(

Please do not use the live database to test things. You are uploading empty nodes in the middle of the ocean. There is a test instance of the API available at https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org

Please use this for testing.

Scroll to the top of this changeset details page and look at the changeset tags. There is a "created_by" tag that specifies which editor was used to make the edit.

You can of course use any editor you wish but Potlatch is no longer being actively developed so it doesn't know about newer tagging presets and such. It was great for its time but personally I think iD is a better option now. Of course I tend to use JOSM or smart phone apps anyway :)

Your faith in Potlatch (2) is truly inspiring :)

Oh, I see you are still using the Potlatch 2 editor. It is probably set as your preferred one in your account settings or something. I would highly recommend trying the newer iD editor. Click on the arrow next to the "Edit" button to get the editor choices. iD will default units and other things to sensible values depending on the region you are editing in. Also, it doesn't require flash :)

I see you are an old user but only have a few edits. Welcome back to the project!

Some pointers about this edit: If the speed limit is 40 MPH, then it should be tagged as "40 mph" not as 60 (km/h). Also, you set a motor_vehicle=permissive tag on one of the road segments. This is not correct tagging for a public road. "permissive" means it is private but the owner has given permission for the public to use it. In this case, it doesn't need any kind of permission tag since it is tagged as a secondary road which is assumed to be accessible to the public

I have fixed the tagging errors. Happy mapping!

You are correct that motorways should not (generally) have intersections with residential roads. I think the very end of the motorway is one valid exception. What use is changing the last 10 meters from motorway to trunk like you did in some cases?
And as in this case, there is no actual intersection and the correct fix was to change the residential road, not the motorway.

It seems like you may have been trying to fix "bugs" being reported by some QA tool. Maybe for points? What was the tool that led you to find these intersections to fix?

This building seems to be much too small and in an incorrect location. I suspect something went wrong in your attempted import process. I am also guessing that you are somehow related to the "Qatar University" account which has performed several similar building imports. There have been several comments on these changesets and they have not been answered. Unless you respond to these questions, these changes are going to be reverted as improperly performed imports.

Toby, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group.

This building seems to have been imported from somewhere. Your specified source of "Documents" is not sufficient to tell the OSM community where this data came from or if it is from a source that is compatible with the OSM license. You seem to have also used some incorrect tagging as evidenced by the fact that the name on the map for this building is currently "groundfloor". You have not responded to other requests for information on your changesets so unless I get a response of some kind, I think I am going to revert your changes.

Toby, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group

Without a response, I am going to revert these edits tomorrow.

Please explain why you made this change. It almost seems like a misguided semi-automatic edit and the fact that you have been doing a lot of them concerns me. In this case, you split a 25 meter section of motorway out of the middle of a way and retagged it as trunk, seemingly because it intersects another road. However if you had examined things more closely, you would have seen that the intersecting road doesn't actually intersect any more. The highway=residential road is the one that should have been split and the intersecting piece removed. Here is the "intersection" in an OpenStreetCam image: https://openstreetcam.org/details/1134447/6657

This changeset moved a massive number of nodes across a wide area exactly 1.79 meters to the northwest. It seems likely that this is some kind of mistake and seems to have negatively impacted the geometry of several objects. What was your intention with this changeset? Your changeset comment doesn't help me understand your intentions. You have at least 3 other changesets with similar changes in them recently. There has been a request made to revert these move operations. Unless you have a good explanation for these changes, I am inclined to agree with the request to revert.

Toby,
On behalf of the Data Working Group

Most of this user's edits have been reverted as pokemon vandalism.