Hi, thanks for adding the cross country course. However it's causing a lot of violations. There's a rule: one item, one object, so if the course shares a path with some existing item, you should use that existing item. Right now there are a ton of things that are crossing and overlapping existing paths and I'm tempted to rip up/delete the path due to the immense number of violations here.

Since it appears to share existing paths, the correct mapping is to add paths that don't share and create a route relation that encompasses these and the paths that do share, which may include roads or other sidewalks or paths. Otherwise there is some ambiguity when you're there, which road one is on when there is really only one...

Hello, thanks for your contribution for the Metacoment-Monadnock Trail. However some pieces you've added is causing many validation errors due to overlapping and crossing roads. As the trail shares the road network and other trails, the proper way is to use a relation to highlight the trail versus drawing another footpath on top of existing roads.
I do see a relation osm.org/relation/2317544 which should be used for the full trail instead of adding pieces named as such. Adding pieces named Metacomet-Monadnock Trail, unless the path is solely used for this trail, is one example of "drawing for the renderer" that should not be done.
Let me know if you're not sure what I mean here.

Hi, I thought we decided this to be trunk, not motorway: osm.wiki/Colorado/Highway_Classification Should this be reverted?

Hi, I believe the tag you're looking for is roof:levels=2 and this should fully resolve one aspect of the fixme request. The building sounds like it should be building:levels=1 instead however, take a look at osm.wiki/Key:building:levels for details. I'm not sure how to categorize the roof (roof:shape), it doesn't appear to be fully gabled in the imagery.

Hi, just as a comment, we shouldn't be putting names on buildings unless they are specifically named as such... that being said, if there's a whole bunch of buildings named the same near each other, they're not really named to distinguish them from each other? :)
Well, ideally the apartment complex name should be put on the landuse polygon that encompasses all the buildings, so we know that each of the buildings within the complex are related together because they all sit in the same landuse. Shows up much more tidy too.

Okay I think I fixed it in changeset osm.org/changeset/125868279

Ah okay, sorry had to go back to whoever made the version 1's. will need to find out what's going on here...

Hi, osm.org/way/1050682243 seems to be very short bike route too, but it overlaps an existing road. Should all of these cycle route ways actually be put into a bike route relation instead?

Hi, osm.org/way/1051594775 seems very short to be a bike "route" ... was this complete? Also this is overlapping a road, which is a violation - which lead me to this in the first place. Know more about this route to make it better?

Hi, I noticed you added osm.org/way/1025921851 a while ago, but as I was looking at the imagery, is this a new separate sidewalk that was recently constructed that people are not allowed to drive cars on, or are you just describing the road that people can also walk on?

If it's the latter, roads already implicitly allow people walking on it, and the extra path is actually wrong since it implies there's a curb or at least a bit of grass that separates the road and the footpath.

But again, this is only because I'm armchair investigating map violations. Let me know if the imagery is old and that'd mean I'm off base!

Hi, I am wondering about the two abandoned railways 1018544766 and 1018544767 - I don't see them in imagery and buildings have been built over them, should they really be "abandoned" (meaning the bed and metal should be there but overgrown with weeds), "razed" (they were removed), or should they simply be removed as they no longer exist?

Hi, I'm curious about the tunnel (way #1062192503) - is this a real tunnel here? Seems kind of odd but maybe it's correct...

hey, thanks for edits. However just wanted to let you know the roundabout you added may be turning in the wrong direction, we should be driving on the right side of the road and make a right when entering a roundabout, and going around counterclockwise. I'd be surprised if this is not the case here but just wanted to let you know.

We don't accept sedition on OSM :D
just kidding around, yeah I wish we can fix typos on our changeset notes but I thought it was funny :)

be careful, looks like you dragged node 86186142 accidentally. I put it back to its original spot in changeset 125427649 .

Updated in changeset 125334652, should be a bit cleaner - no more overlapping way!

Hi, thanks for trying to fix the overlap -- though still seems to need work. about osm.org/way/975501221 - I propose we delete this entirely to get rid of the overlap. Things like bike lanes should be marked in tags(like cycleway:right=lane) of the main road and not drawn as a separate way like it's being done here?
osm.wiki/Key:cycleway

Hmm... so that 12 year old data was incorrect perhaps? Now I really don't understand what's going on here.

It looks like version 1, h4ck3rm1k3 did the initial POI 12 years ago. Then in version 2, h4ck3rm1ke touched it again and changed man_made=mine.

Then in version 3 you added land_use=quarry, which is probably not correct. But then in version 4, you deleted the POI.

I would expect the POI restored to h4ck3rm1k3's version 2?

I don't know what the extent of this is, but this seems a bit worrisome.

Hi, something looks very weird with the two 'reverts' you did... if you look at the history of osm.org/node/585383651 it looks like you ended up deleting a bad tag change or something? Not sure exactly of the intent but something seems wrong here