osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

TBH I think this isn't such a big deal though prefer it's more than just one structure. Yeah it would be nice it was public (i.e. not access=private) but it is still a playground and it's on the ground, so it gets mapped just like a private road.

Do you remember if you split up the connection between east main street and west main street that was separated at that railway crossing? Was this done by accident or was there a reason for it?

osm.org/note/4250670

Hi
I don't think the bridge is needed in this case. This location looks like the sidewalk/roads are over a culvert or water tunnel and was fine without the bridge. Actually it's currently wrong to have both a bridge and a culvert (since there's now nothing at level=0) -- probably should revert.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap where contributions are always welcome. However I don't think this is mapped properly - it surely is not a lake. It can be changed to a private swimming pool but the location and size is not available at the moment. Could you change this to a swimming pool and whose pool is it, there are clearly fences around all these lots, and this water is over the fences...

Thanks for adding the business, though I changed it to a veterinary instead of a hospital, seems more fitting.

Hi I was wondering about TX205 and the bend that was placed in it near Equestrian Trail, was this from proprietary satellite imagery or from telemetry data? This looked very strange compared to our available satellite imagery and didn't find any construction projects on this road, perhaps you have documentation about this? Thanks.

Yeah it's been 11 years, but I guess this is why automated renaming is frowned upon, spotted a couple of "Br" abbreviations changed to "Bridge" when it was "Branch" in TIGER ... oh well, not a big deal, human intervention was needed anyway it seems...

Welcome and thanks for contributing to OSM. Just wanted to mention that you seemed to have tagged the road as a bridge. The computer subsequently thought the whole road was a bridge which isn't quite right. To actually add a bridge you should cut the road to the on-dirt and over-water segments and tag only the over-water segments as a bridge. Don't worry about it, it's been corrected now, and you're welcome to take a look at the correction.

Hi, I had to remove one of the bike paths you put down as it was causing validation problems. If there's only one asphalt, there should be just one roadway and that roadway should be tagged with cycleway=lane and other tags if it's only on one side. TBH this would not have been flagged as an error if you didn't overlap the driveable road, so just letting you know how you can improve mapping in the future.

Also osm.org/way/1184663837 as well.

Could you check the roundabout flare roads like osm.org/way/1184663842 - are the one way directions correct? (I don't have sat imagery to check, error was sourced from a QC tool.)

I can try to revert the change if possible, but were there other changes in this changeset that should be kept. They could just be disconnected but I suspect someone may reconnect them in the future by mistake so perhaps the revert to parallel slightly offset lines would be best?

Just needed to put the tag on the relation object instead of the way object. I'll go ahead and do it then.

hey, thanks for trying to resolve osm.org/note/1975179 but I think the tag should be added to object osm.org/relation/3160247 instead of object osm.org/way/174701039 perhaps?

BTW osm.org/node/11523691778 is a specific example where it's not quite right to have the upper and lower decks of the bridge connected.

osm.org/note/4072832 brought to attention that there seems to be some connectivity issues with this or some related edit. I'm not sure which edits introduced it but this was mentioned.
It looks like the upper and lower decks of the bridge are connected which is a bit problematic. TBH, OSM is not very well suited for overlapping layers so having the two layers slightly offset is better than having them connected but of course it's not exact. What are your thoughts?

Hi, Welcome to OSM and thanks for updating this! Just wanted to note that some of the old obsolete data is still there, not sure if organic maps can fix this but if you could, delete the old data (Lucky)? Unfortunately I don't know how to use organic maps so can't help you there, but if you aren't sure what to do, I can delete the old data for you if you wish. Thanks again!

Bing Streetside.

This is a T intersection, there should not be 4 roads connected to it. The main reason is style consistency - while in this case it's the lesser of evils, if there are 5 or so roads that intersection, it is hard for a routing program to tell you that you need to take the left....which left, there are two lefts, but one is actually straight. This style completely removes the ambiguity. I had some experience with some routers (though this intersection shouldn't be as ambiguous) report that going straight is actually taking a right turn because the angle of the drawing is enough to trick the router into thinking a turn needs to happen. With the dual carriageway starting slightly after the intersection, this can't happen.

Sometimes a 5 way intersection is really there in real life, then it should be drawn that way, but this in reality is a 3-way intersection.

I don't know about the other change, have to indicate specifically what was lost.