Please provide the actual data source. Where did your "geojson data file" come from and how do we know that it's OdBL compatible?

Hi, what is the source of this data? One of the features is a very long underground pipeline which I assume is not visible in aerial imagery?

@DaveF, I live in a pragmatic world where I'm concerned about actually getting stuff done. No amount of whinging on a changeset comment will change the fact that some communities and individuals are heavy on rule-lawyering and perfectionism. With this reality in mind, any edit that will get reverted is a waste of everyone's time. Despite what you seem to imply above, the US is one of the more amenable places to bulk and mechanical editing. However, it still requires a base understanding of community expectations.

I similarly bulk-edited 30,000 or so riverbank tags in the US, with community support and a good understanding of where the data came from and how it came to be. So I am absolutely a fan of bulk and mechanical

See:
osm.wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization

I largely agree with Carnildo's description of reservoirs tagged from the GNIS import. Tens of thousands of farmer's cow ponds in North America are tagged as reservoirs, and the presence of the old tag gives us something to go off of in sorting these out into "reservoir" and "not reservoir". But, if you've never looked at the data or talked to people who map these areas, you'd never know about them. Merely upgrading the tag makes finding and fixing problem data harder.

Meanwhile, after a brief discussion on the Czech mailing list, every landuse=reservoir in the Czech Republic was upgraded to the new tagging. The Czech mappers understood that no underlying data issue made this problematic.

In the Czech case, it was a quick note on their mailing list, and then the edit a few days later. In the riverbank case in the US, it was quick notes on Slack once it was clear there was no opposition. Bulk editing doesn't need to be excessively process-driven, but it does need a minimum level of understanding of the data that's being edited and at least a courtesy interaction with the community involved.

Look, some communities are fine with these kinds of edits and some aren't. So when you make a huge edit like this, it will inevitably make a bunch of people mad in a place where they hate bulk editing and cause a revert. I would suggest familiarizing yourself a bit more with OSM culture in that regard and I wish you success in communities that are more amenable to your preferred contribution style.

The multipolygon is not closed, because one of the members has the wrong role. Specifically osm.org/way/413007122 which is an inner member but is tagged as outer. I expect that because of the bug in iD (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8286) the editor gave you no warning.

Boundary is broken, please fix

Boundary is broken after this edit.

Oshkosh boundary is broken after this edit.

Oh, I guess it's just part of Stonington.

Should Pawcatuck be a proper admin boundary or is it only a CDP?

Thanks for fixing it!

I don't agree with this change. Based on the short length, this should be highway=trunk + expressway=yes.

user_5359, this is the first edit by a brand-new user. Please make an attempt to be welcoming and help other users learn from their mistakes rather than being a jerk about it.

I've corrected the tags, and you could have too.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time you've had difficulty working with others on the project, and your repeated abrasive behavior is the kind of thing that drives people away.

I would invite you to consider whether this project is a good fit for you.

I've reverted this changeset. user_5359, in the future, please take more care in not removing legitimate additions to the map.

If it's just proposed, I would recommend not mapping it. if it's under construction, use the construction tag.

This changeset added expressway=yes to a county boundary (osm.org/relation/1822195). I assume that's a goof :-D

I've reverted this change in 134951199

In Newport I go with what's signed on the ground as they're generally pretty good about putting signs on their roads and it lines up with OSM's "on the ground" rule. There isn't a sign here like there is for every other city street, so I figured it was more appropriately tagged as the internal road system to an apartment complex. But feel free to run up it anyways :-D

Relation: Wenmiao Subdistrict (9882827) is broken, are you able to fix it?

I've reverted changes to borough tagging in New York City to restore the status quo pending community discussion. Thank you HeadAsylum432 for attempting to improve the map, but it is important to discuss significant changes with the local mapping community before making them. I would encourage you to join the OSM US slack server (slack.openstreetmap.us) in the channel #local-nyc to connect with other mappers in the city on mapping issues. The tagging of NYC boroughs is a fairly contentious topic that shouldn't changed unilaterally.