Got it. The use of ele:ft=* seems like a good way to preserve the significant figures, but I'll convert the main ele=* tags later today when I get time.

I'm not troubled by bespoke tagging, the real world has many idiosyncrasies and attempting 100% consistency has diminishing returns in any case. Of course, being an open database I welcome anyone who wants to emend the objects I touch; likewise I am happy to respond to changeset comments.

To answer your questions, the label remains accurate but dominates the osm-carto display for Lamy. I am of course aware of the caveat against attempting to satisfy the oddities of any particular data consumer, but perhaps consider it a placeholder tag while I understand why it is given such undue cartographic emphasis and how that can be rectified. The 'especially large' language you quote seems an important clue that I should look for another schema to denote a sculptural object that serves a primarily commemorative purpose (although not one related to the surroundings except indirectly, via the operator). You are correct, incidentally; it is merely perhaps a meter and a half tall.

Good catch on the second concern, I think the appropriate key would be `inscription:url`.

I thought that the image provider tags used merely a unique ID instead of a complete URI, rather like `wikidata` versus a more generic website key. But your point is well taken that the same basic info is encoded either way and can safely be deduplicated.

Speaking of the KartaView image, it is a faithful depiction of the appearance of the object, but as far as the portrayed setting, that is outdated (from when it was across the road from where it is now).

Thanks for adding these roads!

thanks, that typo consistently haunts my spelling.

I missed your return to OSM a couple months ago, but anyway a belated welcome back! Hope you and Jason et al. too are doing well.

Hi! Are you aware of access=permit ? This may help your acquaintance out by appropriately changing the rendering on some downstream maps consuming OSM data. access=private is a good alternative, of course.

Thanks for the edit. It was a subjective tag and therefore inappropriate for OSM, but 'troll tagging' means something different: osm.wiki/wiki/trolltag

Thanks for your contribution! Google Maps doesn't draw from OSM so it may be awhile yet before they display it, but many other maps across the web do use OSM and update at different frequencies.

Can you confirm if the Kmart is still active? (also asked at changeset/69437088)

Can you confirm if the Kmart is still active? (also asked at changeset/69438837)

Apologies. How should this be fixed?

the postal code tag seems (in the US) designed for the main five-digit ZIP; I wanted to put the +4 elsewhere for safekeeping.

do you have software that tells you about new rare key uses?

There's art of a lizard painted (or otherwise marked, I only have aerials to go off) on the pavement there. I didn't know what tagging to use so I just went with area=yes at first, but iD complained so I added the other tag. Alternately, it's a defacto access tag indicating that lizards might be found there from time to time. Feel free to change it.

Out of curiosity, what kind of fixes were needed?

It's less about the hydrology and more about the topology.

Traversable ways (such as a trail, path, or road) and waterways (including intermittent ones, even if 'intermittent' means 'only wet in 100-year floods, if that') crossing each other needs one of: a ford if they cross at the same elevation, a culvert for the waterway or bridge for the path if the waterway goes under the path, or an aqueduct if the path goes under the waterway.

QA tools look for these tags / geometry. Such tools can of course be ignored, but the truth is that the on-the-ground situation will be one of those three (with the exception of arroyos/wadis that are themselves used as paths for longer stretches than a crossing takes, a situation which most OSM tooling doesn't currently handle well although there have been efforts to improve that), and it's not worth adding chaff to QA reports if it can be avoided.

Thanks for the question, and if you have any followups please feel free to continue asking / suggesting and I'll do my best to help constructively.

Oh no, munged the name of the hotel when merging duplicate area and point...will fix later if someone else doesn't first, have to run right now though.

updated.

These things: https://pceasy.com/Images%20for%20Individual%20Pages/Flat%20Stan/Flat%20Stan%201/Taking%20a%20Ride%20in%20the%20Pneumatic%20Tube%20at%20the%20Bank.JPG I just made an edit (/changeset/106367176) that may perhaps be a little more semantic. I don't think there is a well-accepted tag for this feature yet, however, so it's a case of fallback to ATYL.

>4 websites can't be wrong

They can be if they merely copy from each other.
In this case, addr:state isn't the only addr: tag that seems to be mistaken; where does the :housenumber originate from?

Well, I did so. If you need it in `name` for some reason you can change it back, but that's not the usual practice. If you see this and want to meet some of the frequent contributors to OSM in NM, you can visit the #local-newmexico channel in https://slack.openstreetmap.us; cheers!