Can you please explain your reasoning for changing Indiana to a city? Relative to other cities in Pennsylvania, Indiana has a very small population.

Please read over these wiki articles before making any more edits. While I'm sure the intent was not malicious, these edits and many like it do not align with best practices in the OSM community. Most notably, it is discouraged to not "map for the renderer", i.e. creating features or adding tags so the features will be visible.
osm.wiki/Good_practice
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I did not add the access=no tag to this trail. Looks like the extent of my edits to it was adding a bridge which was clearly visible from aerial imagery, hence the v1 ways that were generated from splitting the original way.

I'd say if you've field surveyed this trail or have a reputable data source that indicates that the trail is public access, then you're welcome to correct the tag.

Hi scarapella, aplogies for taking awhile to reply and address this. I did some digging and you're correct - it is not a part of White Mtn NF. In the USFS dataset I was using for import, it for some reason shares the LOC_NM tag with the other parcels of the NF despite having no formal association. Thanks for catching this... already corrected.

Understood, but it's generally a good practice to keep it separated so that an edit to the land use does not affect the boundary, or vise versa. For example, I'm in the process of adding all inholdings to Daniel Boone NF, and some of them are within Clifty and Beaver Creek Wilderness. Updating the boundaries would also change the cover of landuse=forest. On a similar token, if a wildfire were to wipe out a large portion of forest in the wilderness area and require some land cover updates, a new mapper may inadvertently change the wilderness area boundary unaware of what it represents. The most common example I've seen is someone adding ponds or lakes as inner members of the forest relation, making them appear as private inholdings of the boundary. So please, try to avoid this going forward.

Please do not add land use tags to protected area relations. It should always be drawn as a separate feature since it's an oversimplification to call this entire wilderness area landuse = forest

Welcome to OSM! Did you intend to delete an entire National Forest off of the map? I can only assume this was an error and will be reverting this changeset. Before making any more edits, might be best read:osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide

Please be more careful with your edits - seems like you accidentally deleted a portion of the Monongahela NF boundary which has caused it to no longer render! You also tagged this piece of the boundary as highway=path, which I can only assume is also an error since it overlaps several other paths. osm.org/way/716001847

I will be reverting this changeset in order to properly restore the boundary.

Martin, I disagree that mbeyerle's tag removal was misguided simply by the premise that sells:wine is a more specific tag. Would it be logical for users to replace generally standardized tagging schemes with keys or tags that they believe add specificity on the notion that it will provide end users with greater detail? By your logic, it would be acceptable to replace surface=gravel with surface=crushed_stone_#5 because that specifies the exact grade of gravel. How will the community ever reach harmonious agreement on tagging standards if we don't do small and harmless cleanups like the one in this edit, where the lesser used sells:wine key was replaced with one that implied that wine is sold based on established wiki definitions?

Hi Dufekin, you've made a lot of very questionable edits around the State College area that can be considered vandalism. Can you please explain why you've made a very large prison ground that covers forest and residential areas? Converted a wastewater plant into a park? Converting roads into a bus guideway? There's several more that make no sense. Please reply soon or I will take it upon myself to revert your edits.

What's your source for the horse racing tracks that you created?

Also, when adding buildings, please square the corners of them by pressing "q"

Great edits! :)

Hi, please only use the name=* key for trails that have a posted name on them. Using (u) to indicate that the trail does not have a name does not add value and creates confusion.

Hi, welcome to OSM! Just because a driveway is private does not mean that it does not exist and therefore should not be removed. A better option would be to add an access=private tag to indicate to users that the driveway is privately owned. I will be reverting this changeset and other similar ones unless you have any objections

Just because Warren is classified as a city by PA law, it is not necessarily a city per OSM tagging standards, which has a median population value of 130,000
osm.wiki/Tag:place=city?uselang=en

Welcome to OSM! You are correct that the Bing aerial photos are a little bit dated and do not accurately show the new Chemical and Biomedical Engineering Building. However, the previous edits in this area were done using PEMA imagery and are much more precise than the edits you've made. Please try to check multiple imagery sources before undoing other people's work.

As discussed in my reply message, adding highway=secondary overtop of the highway=service relation violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule and does not meet the tagging standards of highway=secondary. I will be reverting this changeset

Is this name for the road posted on any signage? The houses on this road have Baldwin St. as their street address

Thanks for your reply. I agree with your sentiment, but disagree that avoiding conflicting tags takes precedence over accurately depicting the NF boundary. For instance, Mount Evans Wilderness is a part of Pike and Arapaho NF, but there is no way of determining if or where it is part of either without viewing another map (which defeats the purpose of viewing it on OSM, imo). osm.org/relation/5718244

I think it could pretty easily be implied by a user that the wilderness area does not hold the same protection_title or protect_class as the remainder of the NF, and could even be clarified by adding a note on the boundary and in the USFS wiki:
osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands/Forest_Service

I've already reverted a few NFs, but I wanted to make sure we were on the same page and avoid an edit war before doing any more!

Hi Dilys, I know this edit was made several years ago, but can you please explain why you excluded wilderness areas from this and many other national forest relations? These areas are legally within the boundaries of the NFs and fall under the jurisdiction of the USFS.