Hey there, can you give a bit more detail about what these changes were? It's kind of a large changeset so we're not quite sure what actually changed. It looks like some route relations were deleted?

Hi, you tagged this as a track road, however, it looks like there are houses on this road, therefore it should probably be highway=residential with the appropriate surface tags for unpaved roads.

This does not appear to be an administrative boundary.

Also, be sure to validate in JOSM, as there were a bunch of errors reported for me. You can use Shift+Y to simplify nodes.

Here's a YouTube video I created a few months ago describing the ins and outs of river area tagging for a more detailed explanation :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5YwXDKGr2Y&t=10s

Also, I noticed that you used area=yes, which is not needed, and water=intermittent, which is a mistake - it should be intermittent=yes.

Hey there, thanks for working on the CanVec import! I'd recommend that you use the newer tagging natural=water+water=river going forward for river areas instead of waterway=riverbank.

Hello, unfortunately I've had to revert this changeset, as you tagged a highway as Lake Winnetonka :)

Also, a gentle reminder that you have not responded to previous changeset comments. It's expected that you work with other OSM community members that are trying to reach out to you.

Hello Yocomik - as with the other changeset I commented on, it appears that you've downgraded MN 62 and MN 77 to trunk, however, they seem to meet the characteristics of a motorway.

Discussion at https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ channel #local-minnesota

Hello, Yocomik. Can you explain why you've retagged US 169 as a trunk?

We've been discussing your recent highway classification edits on Slack, and so far the consensus appear to be that a number of the motorways you've downgraded to trunk should remain as a motorway.

We invite you to join the discussion at https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ at the channel #local-minnesota which is a bit easier than changeset discussions :)

There is no issue with a trunk road (or any other class, really) directly merging into a motorway. It is generally rare because there is normally a decision point where the main road divides into multiple ramps to service various directions of travel. However, in this case, UT 201 cleanly merges into I-80 in one direction only. It is not appropriate to choose an arbitrary point along UT 201 and declare it to suddenly be a link road. Why that spot and not closer to the motorway? Why not back at the last intersection? It is not clear what problem you are trying to solve with this change.

It looks like the wiki needs to be corrected, as it is not consistent with US community usage, as there are numerous examples of converging and diverging motorways in cases where a link would be inappropriate, such as:

osm.org/way/203943961
osm.org/way/29988168
osm.org/way/28950750

I would encourage you to join in the active, ongoing discussion on this toping on the OpenStreetMap US Slack, channel #tagging, which is accessible at:

https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Alternately, the talk-us mailing list would be an appropriate venue to discuss this topic as well.

Hi, this is a courtesy note to let everyone know that I've reverted this land cover import. We discussed this on Slack and concluded that there were considerable quality issues (which appear to be artifacts of your generalization approach) with this undiscussed import which warranted its removal.

We invite you to revise your process, and would welcome an import of land cover data, provided that the import guidelines are followed:
(osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines)

It is a requirement to discuss large-scale changes with the community; this can be done on the talk-us mailing list, the imports mailing list, or on the #imports channel of the OpenStreetMap US Slack. The US community looks forward to working with you in a constructive way!

Hi, can you tell me what the source for this bus route is?

Hello, can you provide the source for this bus route information?

Do we have a source for it? Pretty sure the original wasn't salvageable but we can reuse the relation ID.

Hello, pravinmyerapale. It appears that this is an alternate account of pravinyerapale and that you're mapping/importing bus routes as part of an organized editing activity. OSM's Data Working Group (DWG) reached out to your other account two weeks ago (osm.org/user/pravinyerapale/blocks) and requested that your document your activities in accordance with OSM's organized editing guides.

To be clear, I expect that the US community is fine with bus routes being added, provided that the data is (1) accurate and (2) comes from a source that is compliant with OSM's license limitations.

We ask again for you to communicate with our community and tell us where this data comes from and document your process so quality assurance can be done.

If you continue to be unresponsive, we will have no choice but to request that the DWG revert all of your changes, in bulk, since we would not be able to ascertain whether this data is compliant and therefore would have no choice but to ask for it to be removed.

Again, we are perfectly happy to have you contribute bus route information, but please communicate and work with the community so we can all be on the same page and make sure that this data is okay to use!

If you would prefer, you can contact the US community on Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/) or on the talk-us mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us)

Thanks!
Brian

Hello, AbhiPawar. It appears that this is an alternate account of Abhijitbpawar and that you're mapping/importing bus routes as part of an organized editing activity. OSM's Data Working Group (DWG) reached out to your other account two weeks ago (osm.org/user/Abhijitbpawar/blocks) and requested that your document your activities in accordance with OSM's organized editing guides.

To be clear, I expect that the US community is fine with bus routes being added, provided that the data is (1) accurate and (2) comes from a source that is compliant with OSM's license limitations.

We ask again for you to communicate with our community and tell us where this data comes from and document your process so quality assurance can be done.

If you continue to be unresponsive, we will have no choice but to request that the DWG revert all of your changes, in bulk, since we would not be able to ascertain whether this data is compliant and therefore would have no choice but to ask for it to be removed.

Again, we are perfectly happy to have you contribute bus route information, but please communicate and work with the community so we can all be on the same page and make sure that this data is okay to use!

If you would prefer, you can contact the US community on Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/) or on the talk-us mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us)

Thanks!
Brian

Hello, MayurPatil6692. It appears that this is an alternate account of M@YUR and that you're mapping/importing bus routes as part of an organized editing activity. OSM's Data Working Group (DWG) reached out to your other account two weeks ago (osm.org/user/M@YUR/blocks) and requested that your document your activities in accordance with OSM's organized editing guides.

To be clear, I expect that the US community is fine with bus routes being added, provided that the data is (1) accurate and (2) comes from a source that is compliant with OSM's license limitations.

We ask again for you to communicate with our community and tell us where this data comes from and document your process so quality assurance can be done.

If you continue to be unresponsive, we will have no choice but to request that the DWG revert all of your changes, in bulk, since we would not be able to ascertain whether this data is compliant and therefore would have no choice but to ask for it to be removed.

Again, we are perfectly happy to have you contribute bus route information, but please communicate and work with the community so we can all be on the same page and make sure that this data is okay to use!

If you would prefer, you can contact the US community on Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/) or on the talk-us mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us)

Thanks!
Brian

Thanks for fixing this!

Thanks, I will take a look at adding more intermittent tags in this area. The areas were already there before I changed them to streams. Personally I would draw them as lines also, but I didn't want to deconstruct the existing polygons that were there. What do you think?