Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great to me! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks great! Thanks for your contributions.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Thanks for updating these, this is really valuable info for routing and addresses! One minor problem is that names shouldn't be abbreviated. That's because it's easy for software to shorten names where appropriate, but can be harder to "expand" them. (More info: osm.wiki/Abbreviations)

I went ahead and fixed that so no need to do anything. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Things look good overall, but there was a problem with a couple of your tags. Specifically, description= is for a concise description of a feature, not marketing ad space. (Looks like another mapper has already fixed things up!)
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Things mostly look good to me! One problem, though, is with the addresses on those buildings. You've added the name=* tag, whereas the address belong in addr:*=* tags. (You can use the form in the online iD editor to add the right tags.) Name is for the "common name" of a feature. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contribution.

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good to me! One minor tip is that when using iD (the online osm.org editor) you can select a building or other shape and press "Q" to square up corners.
Thanks for your contributions!

Just as a side note, there is no difference between an "area" and "line" in OSM - they are both technically "ways". The iD editor just uses those buttons to filter on different feature presets during the editing process.

Ohh, you're right that it area=yes won't show up in a specific iD dropdown (but it will show up in the tag editor section at the bottom). If you create a feature using the "area" tool it'll be added automatically - that's probably what happened. For that reason when I know I'm about to add a multipolygon, I use the line tool.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Info from local mappers like yourself is super valuable! Most everything looks good, except there are a few problems with the tags on these features:
- The pole barn you've added is tagged as a road. Instead it should be building=barn.
- Looks like you accidentally added a "slipway" node to the barn's outline.
- Usually some attribute of a feature should only be tagged in one way. That means there's no need to add a note= tag when the same info is in description or name, etc.
- Last thing, it's best to avoid descriptive names. That means we should ask ourselves, Is this road **named** "Driveway"? No, it's just **a** driveway. Therefore, the tag service=driveway is adequate and there should be no name= tag.

I know that's a lot to remember, so no worries if you don't get all of it. I went ahead and implemented all those suggestions. Thanks again for your contribution, and let me know if you have any questions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good to me, no complaints! Regarding dangerous crossings, I don't know of any way to tag that, and I found this reddit thread [0] where people seem to agree, unfortunately. There is also this obsoleted tagging proposal that's related. [1] So in summary it seems like sadly there is no way to represent this in OSM right now. Thanks for your contributions!

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/12p3nee/dangerous_pedestrian_crossing/
[1] osm.wiki/Proposal:Hazard_warning

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. I'm not super familiar with bicycle route relations, but from what I can tell everything is good! Perhaps another experienced mapper can chime in to double check me.
Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Nice job on the surface tags, that can be valuable info for routing tools! One issue is the tagging of the driveways around house 83686. Instead of highway=residential (meaning a shared thru road), they should be tagged highway=service and service=driveway. That will show that it's a private road used to access only one house.
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Seems good to me! As the (I assume) local mapper, you have the final say on this, but one tip is that you might use the loc_name tag to specify an unofficial name that locals might use. So if the official name is Fox Plaza Garage, you could put that under name= or official_name=, and put The Plaza Garage under loc_name.
But like I said, you'd know better than I if the "real" name really is The Plaza Garage.

Anyway, thanks for your contributions, and let me know if you have any questions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me! The only very minor suggestion I have is that area=yes is unnecessary for the outer way. (I went ahead and removed it.)
Parking lots with voids were my first foray into multipolygon relations too, haha. Nice job, and thanks for your contributions!

For the playground map, my recommendation would be to remove all tags from the member ways, and keep playground=map; type=multipolygon on the parent relation.

Anyway, like I said, everything else looks great! Micro-mapping can be really fun huh. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Nice job on all the details here! Most everything looks great to me as far as tagging goes. The only issue I see is with the multipolygons. A really common mistake is to tag both the member ways (the outlines of features) *and* the multipolygon relation. Really only one of those options should have tags such as building=school or whatever. In this case, I'd say the best way would be to just remove the school building multipolygon, since I wouldn't consider all those shapes to be parts of one building - instead they are each their own building structure, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I've been mapping a couple years now and still constantly fight with the syntax. The wiki's definition is indeed way too verbose. IMO, there is a real need for a "builder" tool where you can use a gui to describe the situation and it'll create the string for you. Maybe I'll make it someday haha. Until then at least we have parsers/validators like this.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me, no complaints! Regarding geometry, one resource you might be interested in to improve the trail is Strava's heatmap. It is a little bit of a hassle to make an account and get the cookie info, but once you do it's an awesome source of data for improving trails and whatnot. More info: osm.wiki/Strava

Anyway, let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!