Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes.

- It's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM tags wherever possible. ("N" -> "North")
- The Description tag should be a concise description of the feature rather than a free-form ad space.

I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!

Any info on this?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143628306

Any comments on this?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143252053

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Since you included lots of unrelated changes, it's a little hard for me to be completely sure, but I don't see any issues. Thanks again and happy mapping!

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I went over the changes you made. I think in this case you could use either playground=swing or playground:swing=yes. While playground=swing seems to be much more commonly used, I'd consider that to be more appropriate for an area that only has swings, rather than a larger playground that contains swings as one of many features.

playground:swing=yes has the benefit of allowing more feature tags to be added without resorting to multiple values on one key (like playground=swing;slide) which is usually good only as a last resort.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks again and happy mapping!

Hello Vaasan and commenters! I'm going through changesets that have requested a review. Looking over this I'm thinking highway 139/50 going north from exit 15 should not be one-way. But I can't be sure I guess - Can any locals weigh in?

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. For the surface tag on that sidewalk, I think the correct one would be concrete rather than concrete_sidewalk. I went ahead and changed that. Thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I went over your changes. Looks great to me, no problems. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and thanks for your contributions! In the future, please use a descriptive changeset comment. An example here might be "Added buildings, fixed Sunset Drive road name, and other minor adjustments". That helps other mappers review what you changed. Thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes. Looks like someone fixed it already, but in the future it's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM tags, in addresses for example. I also added a more descriptive office=educational_institution tag. Thanks for your contributions!

Looks like there were already some Wells Fargo tags on the building here. To avoid duplication, I merged them.

In OpenStreetMap tags, it's best to avoid abbreviations. So for addresses, it should be "West 11000 North" rather than "W 11000 N". That's because it's easy for computers to shorten/abbreviate words, but can be more tricky and error-prone to expand them. Here's some more info: osm.wiki/Abbreviations

I fixed the address tag. Thanks!

Since removing features is somewhat of a more serious action, in the future I'd suggest adding a source for the info when deleting things -- such as an in-person observation, using their website, etc.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I went over your recent changes. Looks great overall, I did leave comments with tips on a couple of your other changesets.

For this building, at first glance it looks like it's missing a name, but the outer school grounds already are named. IMO, it's best to avoid duplication in situations like that.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! This looks great, no complaints from me. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! One request - It's best to keep your changesets small - that means saving your work in one area before moving on to the next. That makes it easier for others to review things.
Thanks for your contributions and happy mapping!

Oops, I had my filter tool set up wrong. You didn't request a review, haha.

Hi, and thanks for your contributions! Since you requested a review, I looked over those recent gate changes of yours. I might be mistaken, but I think a gate as a way is fine too, as long as there is an intersecting node, and that node is marked as a gate too.
Anyway, thanks again and happy mapping.

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Looks great.