Not doubting that it was since this was a pretty crude edit, but what is your source?

It really depends on your definition of abandoned:railway=rail. I know there are some people who are very passionate about keeping them if there's the slightest indication on the ground that there was once a rail. I have not surveyed Enola yard apart from looking at it while driving over the I81, but it was obvious from aerial imagery that some of the TIGER rails were no longer existent. So without a formal ground survey, and with recent imagery that didn't show any kind of major development over that section of the yard, I added the abandoned prefix. I don't think there's much value in removing them, but I'm also not adamantly opposed.

Thanks for adding this!! Nice to see other people working on PA parks and nature preserves

Thanks for catching this. These were added errantly during an import, looks like someone else already removed them.

Welcome to OSM! Thanks for adding these trails at Archbald Pothole SP. Are the names that you used the posted, official names of the trails? The name=* should only be used for what can be seen on the ground. More info about it on the wiki: osm.wiki/Key:name

Thanks! I've actually been using your PAD-inspector... HUGE time saver, thanks for putting it together!
Glad to see you're trying to create formal definitions for parks. I'm in the process of putting together a wiki to document proper tagging and progress of mapping public lands in PA, similar to the one created for National Parks. Let me know if you have any feedback:
osm.wiki/Pennsylvania/Public_Lands

Actually, disregard my comment about it being class III, I was thinking of Poe Paddy. Regardless, this is still a state park so I would think it would be appropriate to have boundary=protected_area and leisure=nature_reserve

Hi, do you mind explaining what the proper technique for mapping this feature is if it's incorrect to have it as an inner member of Bald Eagle SF? Poe Valley is an IUCN class III state park, which I believe would qualify it to have the tags that you removed...

Nice additions to these neighborhoods! So I guess they're eventually going to link the two sections of Jensen Drive?

Hi Kevin, thanks for contributing to OSM. While you may be right that these game lands are pretty much all wooded landuse, it is incorrect to put natural=wood or landuse=forest tags on SGL, state parks, state forests, etc. See osm.wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Game_Lands for more info about this.

For this reason I'm going to revert this changeset and all others that added landuse to protected areas in PA. However, you're more than welcome to add separate ways with the natural=wood tag! There's more info on this in the PA wiki: osm.wiki/Pennsylvania#Landuse

Don't worry about reverting it, I can take care of that. ;) It requires you to download JOSM, which can be a little tough to figure out when you're just starting. Keep up the good work otherwise, it's great to see other mappers in the State College area!

Hi Halbig, welcome to OSM! I see you changed a lot of tags from office=administrative to office=government, likely because the iD editor suggests that the office=administrative tagged is deprecated. While this is true, office=government is not an appropriate tag for university administrative offices since they aren't government run. For that reason, I think it would be best to revert this changeset and be a little more careful when reviewing iD's suggested tag updates, let me know what you think.

Totally agree that there isn't really a suitable tag for this type of feature yet... but the feature does still exist in some capacity. Would it maybe be best to tag it as natural=dry_lake (proposed feature), natural=water+intermittent=yes, or a tagless feature?

I can understand why it may bother you how some types of roads look on the map, but you should always choose tags that most accurately describe the feature regardless of how it renders. I'd recommend reading the wiki descriptions of tags to get a better understanding of what should be used. It can be a little subjective at times, so sometimes it's helpful to look at some really well mapped areas nearby and follow their tagging schemes.

As for your point on google maps, OSM is not intended to be a replica of google maps and you should never copy data from them. They spend a lot of time and money creating their maps and it's considered stealing to use their data, satellite imagery or street view to contribute to OSM. For that reason, I'm going to revert this back to a service road.

Hi, do you mind explaining why you changed this from a service road to a residential road? Residential road is usually reserved for roads that are lined with houses.

I knew there was a park there but couldn't find the name anywhere! Nice addition

I believe it was deleted by changesets 91777463, 91777587, 91777706, and 91777922. Possibly others, that's just what I could find from the relation history

Hey, thanks for reverting this! Would you mind taking a look into reverting the changesets that deleted this park nearby? osm.org/relation/5429983
I was going to give it a try... But not very experienced with the reverts yet and probably would've just created more issues.

Hi, is there a reason that you deleted the North Country Trail relation (#880851) in this changeset? Previously, there was a parent relation that bound all of the individual relations for each state that the NCT passes through. I think it might be best to revert this changeset, let me know what you think.

Welcome to OSM! Are the names that you added to these trails their official, posted names? I've gone runs through these gamelands a few times and don't recall these trails having any signs that would indicate a name