Hi haprager, maybe I missed it somewhere while reading through the bill, but does it specify that there is going to be any changes to the boundary of White Sands? Looked more like just an upgrade from national monument to park, not an addition or loss of land.

I'll ask again... please stop adding these farmland polygons. They are not contributing any value since there is already an existing farmland multipolygon. I will be deleting all of the ones you added in the Bellefonte area unless I get a reply.

These farmland polygons overlap and existing landuse=farmland multipolygon. I can understand adding them if you're trying to specify the type of crop on each plot of land, but these polygons don't accurately reflect the plot boundaries. Unless you disagree, I think it would be best to remove them to avoid having duplicate features

Please do not add landcover tags to protected areas! It is a gross oversimplification to say that all of the area within these boundaries is either forest or meadows. Unless you have any objections, I am going to revert your recent changesets that added landcover tags.

Why did you change this large portion of the Tuscarora Trail from highway=footway to highway=unclassified?

Why is just this one section of US 322 being retagged as highway=trunk? I can understand from after the Milroy exit to the intersection with PA 144, or extending to the railroad crossings in Lewistown. But this cutoff seems a little arbitrary.

:'(

It sounds like a loaded question... there's always room for improvement if you think they need refining! But in regards to this specific edit, I only modified another user's contribution such that it would agree with standard OSM tagging schemes and thereby render on the base map.

By removing leisure=nature_reserve, you've caused all of PA's state forests and game lands to no longer render. Per wiki definitions, these features are both protected areas and nature reserves so I strongly believe this changeset should be reverted. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for adding these businesses! Please make sure you avoid abbreviating any names (e.g. use street instead of st.)

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