Separating them by a few inches removes the fact that they are above each other and on the same structure. I will not be doing that. If you link me to the Q/A tool I can add appropriate layers to the items. If that does not solve it, it's the Q/A tool's fault.

I'm sorry that happens. It is just a matter of the fact that the switches in this case are right on top of each other. Perhaps I am missing a layer that would be helpful in this case. Is that the correct solution to this?

Hello Joseph,

Please do not map highway links with no physical barrier between it and the highway like you have done here: way/1068397303.

Thank you,
BubbaJuice

Hello Seth,

Roundabouts are not mapped as highway links but as regular roads.

Thank you,
BubbaJuice

Just letting you know this is completely fictional. A check of different imageries shows that the connection was how it was previously.

way/1014928106 Is not a train station and this should not be tagged as such.

way/340387590 is also not a station of any kind.

Hey Karson,

`water=stream` and `water=river` should not have the name of the stream/river on them.

Thanks.

Road access restrictions based on survey.

Thank you, I really appreciate it. I don't know of any road data that could be used to improve OSM. There is TIGER but most of that data is already in the database.

Hello Emanueli,

These roads are not parking aisles but driveways. See service=parking_aisle#Examples Please revert your tag change.

Thank you,
BubbaJuice

Hello sairajdu,

I believe these roads are not oneway roads. Why did you tag them as so?

Hello Bhakta66,

This is not how you add oneway streets. You split the road using 'x' in iD. You then tag that split segment with 'oneway=yes'. This avoids roads that share the same segment, which is never how something should be mapped. Otherwise, thanks for fixing my note.

Regards,
BubbaJuice

Hello 19timber96,

There is no heath in Arizona. Heath is found in costal regions typically, not deserts. Please do not tag it as so. Tagging nature reserves or other polygons with natural tags like you did in relation/12893749 is also frowned upon so please do not continue this practice.

Regards,
BubbaJuice

Karson,

You reverted my changeset with no explanation. Why did you revert it? Other mappers have clearly stated undeveloped HOA lands are not to be tagged with leisure=nature_reserve unless they are in-fact so (changeset/119868975). The definition of a nature reserve can be found at leisure=nature%20reserve. I have basically said this exact same thing in changeset/120557252. If you continue this practice I might have to get the DWG involved, which I don't want to do.

Regards,
BubbaJuice

I did not see their preserve layer. I see it now.

In no way does it say that. https://gis.pima.gov/maps/detail.cfm?p=114120800

What is the source this (way/1053636223) is from the Nature Conservancy?

Karson,

Please stop tagging these areas with `leisure=nature_reserve` such as you did in way/1057364174. As other mappers have already expressed, this is not the proper tagging for these undeveloped HOA areas (changeset/119868975). They should only be tagged with `lesiure=nature_reserve` if they are specifically protecting the wildlife, flora, fauna there there. If this is not the case, the area should be left untagged.

Regards,
BubbaJuice

Was this all traced by hand?

I'm retagging the neighborhood right now I would prefer no conflicts.