Please don't make imagery edits that change things that have been done by locals recently. This is just plain wrong, and a brief look at the map would have made it obvious that the Randall Library is not a residence.

Hearing no response, and because I as a local think the landuse polygon makes no sense, I'm going to just delete it.

Note that the part of the conservation area leading to the road is NOT tagged boundary=protected_area as this is NOT TRUE from some of the land. However it is in use as conservation land (hence the landuse tag) and is part of a leisure=nature_reserve. Please discuss rather than breaking tagging, especially if you aren't local. (I have walked the land and examined the documents at the registry of deeds.)

The on-the-ground situation is that the boundary between these two conservation parcels is defined by the town line. The L3 Parcels dataset and the town line dataset do not quite line up. To reduce confusion by viewers that do not appreciate the subtlety of mapping in aworld where all data has errors, the boundary is shown as being conincident with how the town line is rendered. This is within a meter of the previous location.

This was originally highway=track, because it is physically suitable for vehicles and used that way at least for emergency access. I don't understand why you changed it to footway. I changed it back before remembering the history -- I had set it to track in 2009, and it remains the same sort of thing now as it was then (just checked on the ground Saturday).

This edit removes a way that represents a trail. The trail was added long ago based on strava, and no mapper has ever seen it. The land is now posted no trespassing, so 1) any use of what might exist is unlawful and 2) more importantly, mappers are prohibited from verifying if there is or isn't a trail. All in all, based on discussion with other active local mappers and landowner representatives I think this phantom maybe-trail shouldn't be on the map, speaking as the local osm steward of this area. Please feel free to message me if you are upset by this.

It looks like there is a residential landuse added in this that doesn't really follow house lots and overlaps SCT's Fieldstone conservation land. Did you mean to add that?

Please do not remove landuse=conservation in massachusetts. It is in local use, despite global opinions. Also please do not make changes like this in changesets with descriptions that are inaccurate. This has nothing to do with service roads. This kind of tag removal by non-locals borders on vandalism.

Please do not vandalize by deleting landuse=conservation, and please do not hide this in changesets about duplicate nodes.

Please do not delete landuse=conservation in massachusetts. While this is arguably deprecated globally, it is very much in use locally. And please do not bury it in changesets that purport to be about service roads.

This changeset was not ok - it added service roads that are duplicative and right next to existing tracks. I have fixed some of the resulting problems.

I removed access=public, because that's not a defined tag. Also, probably it's not ok to be there at night, so I just left off the access tag.

This is not a motorway. I'm changing it back to trunk. This is based on observation from driving on it. Please discuss on talk-us-massachusetts@ if you disagree.

This highway is not trunk. It is very congested stop and go with many at-grade intersections. It essentially meets none of the characteristics required for trunk.

This seems like it should be leisure=recreation_ground, rather than park.

This is not landuse=forest; it is actually conservation land and logging is very occasional. I'm going to change it back to landuse=conservation, but wanted to mention this before doing so.

This new way appears to have been an editing mistake; I have removed it.

I see now that you fixed amenity=school from GNIS. I visited Danforth Art yesterday, and they are not yet in the new building. So I dropped the tourism=museum (which caused me to misroute trying to get there yesterday :-).

The Danforth Museum of Art is still (today) at 123 Union Ave. Can you explain this?