Hi MusLak, please don't change river areas to waterway=riverbank. That tag has been deprecated and is not in use in the US any more. Instead, please use the water->river preset in JOSM.

Hi, there appear to be quality issues with these buildings that you've added. Was this import discussed anywhere? Please pause on adding additional building footprints pending further community discussions.

I also noticed that you put a name on the river area. River areas should not have names, names only go on the waterway=river line.

Here's a YouTube video from a past OSM US Mappy Hour where I discuss best practices in river tagging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5YwXDKGr2Y

Happy mapping!

Hi! The preferred tagging for river areas in the US is natural=water + water=river. You can find it under Presets->water->river.

waterway=riverbank was deprecated back in 2011 and really shouldn't be used anymore:

See: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details

Please stop these imports immediately so that the community can discuss them! There are numerous quality issues here that need to be addresed!

Hi JetCat, can you explain why you deleted Horse Lake and then just left behind a partial trace of the lakeshore? You've caused the lake to disappear from the map!

Hi, thanks for helping to improve the map! I'd like to invite you to the OpenStreetMap US Slack server, where you can chat with other local mappers in the channel #local-kansas. Hope to see you there!

Slack can be found at: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

I agree we need to do some work to tighten up these definitions so they're useful to mappers. Having dangling segments of different classifications makes a mess of the map as you zoom in and out. Highways of the same classification should really form a coherent, importance-based network. Perhaps we can recruit you to draft up the Virginia guidelines?

Hey, welcome to OSM! I think this is supposed to be spelled "Nazarene", can you confirm that?

Also, I'd like to invite you to join the OSM US Slack, channel #local-kansas so that you can connect with other Kansas mappers.

You can get to Slack here:
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi,

Thank you for working to make the map better. I've reverted these changes because OpenStreetMap maps what is on the ground. If the paths in question are private, they should instead be marked with the tag "access=private" rather than deleted. This will change the appearance of the trails on the map to that of a private trail, and hiking apps will avoid routing hikers over those trails.

For more info, please see also:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

If you wish to chat with other mappers in your area, please visit the OSM US Slack at https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ and join the channel #local-massachusetts

Hi, this tiny section of road should not have been upgraded to trunk. This is a topic that is being actively worked on in the United States, and I invite you to discuss further on Slack, channel #highway-classification, or on the talk-us list or OSM World Discord.

Also, please see:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Hello, why did you make this short section into a motorway?

We discussed some of these, and the bicycle tag has implications because some interstates do allow them. But I'm definitely open to starting a discussion on what makes sense for motorway defaults.

Please don't add incorrect tagging for a data consumer. If a road doesn't have a name, it doesn't have a name.

Texas and New Mexico, too. Wouldn't want anyone to feel left out!

Fortunately, there is very good documentation in the US for public lands:
osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands

Note that the tag leisure=nature_reserve (which you have on that feature) does render (green two-tone border).

My bad, thanks for fixing this!

As long as someone can travel to this location and verify the name, it seems fine to me.

Cool, thanks for contributing!

Hi dufekin,

I see that you added landuse=grass and natural=grassland to the Black Kettle National Grassland relation. Are you sure that the the entire protected area should be tagged in that way? It is not a typical practice to tag land cover on a boundary relation, but rather to tag only the actual areas of that land cover independently of the boundary. What are your thoughts on this tagging?