reverted after seeing better imagery and understanding what this is...

I removed the overlapping route in changeset 124358675 as another validation tool requested its revert as a MapRoulette task. In any case, to reiterate, it depends on the renderer whether the route is drawn with the dotted lines or whatnot. Again the CyclOSM/Cycle Map should be the ones that have a complete coloration of the trail and I'm not sure of the render cadence of these representations.

BTW I already deleted osm.org/way/1081598199 before I noticed the extent of the damage...

I put in a note for myself and others at osm.org/note/3291112 which needs to be closed once this issue is resolved.

Hi, I noticed you put down a bunch of new ways like osm.org/way/1081598198 and it's a duplicate of existing ways underneath of it. I think I deleted one of them due to the violation but I noticed you had speed info on some of them. They don't match the speed on existing ways so I'm not sure which one is now correct? Please comment back. Need to fix the overlaps.

hi, I noticed you added osm.org/way/1041871209 - but it doesn't fully connect through a road that was already on the map -- it overlaps it, could you take a look at the overlap? The overlapping way is osm.org/way/442904010 . Thanks!

You have a circular and a straw man argument there. Note that there's a person/persons behind validation tool writing and someone who wrote a wiki, and these people are in agreement with each other, and thus it's the ways multiple people do things... and by your argument, it should be approved, even if it disagrees with your view of how things should be done.

Do as you please if it floats your boat, as currently I see only one person thinking your way is the only way to do things.

Hi, thanks for adding.
However just some improvement suggestions: the building is currently at level -1 which implies underground. This surely isn't the case. Unfortunately yes it would conflict with the driveways. Now the advanced tip: I think the best way is to make a tunnel through the building or just terminate the driveways at the building. The latter is acceptable as normally unless you work there, you're normally not allowed to drive through as likely there's a fire truck or closed garage doors blocking. If you want to make a building passage, take a look at osm.org/way/769945676 which makes a tunnel through the building.

Hi, thanks for adding, I don't know why I never saw something wrong even after driving by many, many times.
However one thing to improve: could you take out the house number and spell out "North Taft Avenue" in the the addr:street tag? That would make things a bit more tidy, thanks!

Hello, welcome to OSM. Thanks for noting that this appears to have overgrown and no longer a beach volleyball area as it has grown over in grasses in the latest imagery. I guess the seniors in this retirement community fell out of playing volleyball and just rather swim in the pool.

However we shouldn't be naming things generically like "Drainage Area" as its official name is likely not "Drainage Area" but rather apparently from your description a "infiltration" basin that water is allowed to soak into the ground after heavy rains. So perhaps it'd be best to not have a name of "drainage area" and change the basin type to infiltration?

Take a look at the existing building that is tagged Buttercream - I cleaned up the duplicate, no further action is needed,

I added shop=groomer to the old tagging and took out the duplicate tag. Take a look/no further action is needed.

Hi again,
Looks like The Dog Pawlour was already tagged as well, however it was not completely tagged and not named properly, perhaps that's why it seems like it was missing. Need to merge the two info together, let me know if you don't understand what I mean.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMaps.
I saw your edit here and it appears to be a duplicate. The building is already tagged as a bakery shop for ButterCream. May want to double check the existing data and clean up redundant data. Thanks!

btw speaking of ds8x I still am not sure how to handle osm.org/note/3210468 - he's absolutely right that we shouldn't have 3 identically named buildings here...but clearly they're related. Ponder, ponder...

Well it looks a bit more tidy (and correct) if apartment complex names only shows up once on the map, preferably something that covers the whole area.

I tend to make one big landuse=residential residential=apartments for the whole complex and putting the name there, so that each building is clearly related to the complex as they are within the complex(landuse).

Then I've been marking the buildings' name if they have names, but for the most part they don't - but perhaps the buildings have a letter or number (building 1, building 2, etc.) and that I put in the "ref" tag.

However there are always exceptions! The main exception is If the apartment "complex" only owns one building then I put the apartment "complex" name in the building's name. However if they own commons (leisure= like pools, dog parks, tennis courts, etc.) then the landuse= makes more sense.

At least this is my opinion! I can't say this is "best" but at least it reduces the amount of text printed everywhere yet all objects within the landuse= are still related to the main object. Relations also work - but I reserve this for landuse that's not contiguous and this I've seen places too.

Yep, should get ds8x in this, help do some artwork edits too, not just do streetcomplete :)

https://www.missionrockresidential.com/apartments/co/broomfield/summit-at-flatirons/

Oops! Typo on "Summti" on the landuse, probably should add residential=apartments on the landuse. Also probably don't need the same name for each of the buildings, unless they are really named as such?

Hi, thanks for adding these art installations, but I was wondering some of these I couldn't quite make out the background and match with satellite imagery. For instance "Totem", at osm.org/node/9738917452 appears in front of a plain building in satellite imagery, but the photograph in the image= tag appears in front of a black tar roofed, intricately porched house, which I don't see anywhere nearby. Perhaps it's further to the north? There's that Bridgestone tire dealer in the photograph that would be nice to add too. I haven't been to Greeley in about a year or so, alas I can't verify the locations, I might have to go kartaview Greeley for fun...

Sorry would like to add: I'm commenting just because there seems to be little consensus on what to do with the buildings destroyed by the Marshall Fire. I know that people have post-mortem *added* buildings that were completely destroyed by the fire and would like to hear some ideas on what should be done for these?