In addition to the duplicate data (which is against the "Don't put data on top of data" import guideline), the "phone" and "description" tags are not properly formatted. Because of these issues, it's clear that the data did not go through manual review before uploading. That may be allowed after agreement from the community, but clearly that agreement was not reached either. Manual review after uploading is not acceptable, since it adds bad data to the live database.

Please follow the import guidelines: osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines
In particular:
- Document the import
- Link the documentation in the changeset comment
- Notify the imports mailing list
- Wait for a week for feedback from the local community
- Do not damage the live database
In addition, this changeset violates general guidelines around changeset size.

Our local mapping style is to move the outdated information to old_name=*, destroyed:*=*, and shop=vacant, and keep any still-relevant information, including the address.

By deleting the node entirely, you've removed valuable information from the map, like the location of the street address. Instead of deleting, please either move the outdated information (e.g. to old_name=*, destroyed:*=*, shop=vacant), or remove only the outdated tags.

When making changes, other editors will appreciate if save your changes in one local area first before moving on to another one. In this changeset, you added a shop in LA, but also changed a Muni station in San Francisco, so in the history view, it looks like you edited the whole state of California. Thanks!

Please use more descriptive changeset comments. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thank you!

Deleting and re-drawing the buildings like this has removed information from the map, like the overhang in front of Back Bar, the extension to the side, the height and elevation of the building, and the history of the component nodes (osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history ). A better way to do it might be to keep the building outline while you trace the parts, or to split it into segments and re-join them. JOSM (https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ ) also has plugins to make some of these operations easier (split area, replace geometry, revert tool).

This isn't a duplicate. The only other address point at 5540 Winfield has a unit number of 100, making it distinct. Additionally, the point you deleted had tags indicating that it was a vacant shop. The point should remain so that the next shop to move in can use the existing address point.

Please use more detailed changeset comments. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

It's usually better to edit the building outline rather than delete and re-map, see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history . In this case you've also deleted the address of the building without adding it back.

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap! When deleting closed businesses, it's better to just remove the name and set shop=vacant, rather than delete the node entirely, if it has any other information on it like the location's address.

OpenStreetMap maps what exists currently. If something is yet to be built or has recently been destroyed, use an appropriate lifecycle prefix: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix or feature=construction osm.wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts#.3Ckey.3E_.3D_.3Cstatus.3E_.2B_.3Cstatus.3E_.3D_.3Cvalue.3E
Here's my change osm.org/changeset/117984726

Hello. Please make sure to add a changeset comment describing the changes you made, especially for changes this large. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

You don't need to be a master, or have lots of spare time, to help contribute! For example, OSM South Bay has a list of our current projects here: https://github.com/codeforsanjose/OSM-SouthBay/blob/main/README.md#current-projects The MapRoulette projects only take a few minutes per task, and the SDP POI one has detailed instructions linked on the task page.

I've also reverted this changeset in 117022304. If you can help it, try to improve building outlines instead of redrawing them totally. It's good practice to keep the history of objects as they improve: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history In this case, it also led to existing tags being removed: the building height, address, and elevation. You also shouldn't move buildings to align with aerial imagery. It's often the imagery that's actually offset, and there's a panel in the editor to let you adjust that. Finally, just because you can't find an editor preset for something doesn't mean it has to be tagged as something different. You can try searching the wiki, or asking for advice in the community communication channels.

To fix this, I've reverted this change, and some of your other changes that did similar things, in changeset 117022116. I'm sorry. If it helps, here's a guide on modeling intersections that might be clearer than tagging reference: https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/ Finally, I do encourage you to join either the Code for San Jose map nights (https://www.meetup.com/code-for-san-jose/) or the OpenStreetMap US Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/), where you can ask questions or ask for feedback. We're always looking for new members!

Thank you.

Hello, and thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. I see that this changeset makes a number of problematic changes to the Almaden/Cherry intersection. See here for how divided highways should be mapped: osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways In particular, multiple separate ways should only be used if there is a physical separation. Marked lanes can instead be mapped with various "lanes" keys: osm.wiki/Lanes Indeed, way 417059700 for example already has lanes information, making way 1022444949 redundant. Additionally, turn restriction relations 7680884, 7680885, and 7680886 are now broken, and some of the new ways cross existing ways without intersecting.

The "practice" in OSM is ATYL, meaning no tags are inherently wrong. osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like The page you linked says to use the tag "restriction", and the page on "lanes" describes how any tag can be combined with ":lanes", as was done here: osm.wiki/Lanes Finally, you have still not explained to me how any existing tags communicate that some lanes are no-right-on-red. You have removed information from the map with no adequate replacement.