Hey, thanks for the quick and detailed response!

> Yes, we are building a bike map

Thanks for the clarification here! As this appears to be [Organised Editing](osm.wiki/Organised_Editing) with employees mapping under the direction of your company, you'll want to read and follow the [Organised Editing Guidelines](https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines), e.g. listing your project [in the wiki's list of such](osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities) and providing at least [basic documentation](https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines#Documentation_on_the_wiki) of who you are, the types of changes you will be making and why, etc.; posting an announcement on the OSM community forum and other channels as appropriate to the areas you'll be mapping in (e.g. OSM-US Slack), and tagging your company's changesets with a unique hashtag (e.g. `#BikeStreets`). This will also aid community acceptance and understanding of your changes and help foster a constructive collaboration ahead of time to ensure they are mutually beneficial for both the OSM community and yourselves.

Hi atticquilt, I'm a little perplexed by this changeset. Could you help me understand what you were trying to fix that was wrong with the previous geometry, your reasoning for changing it, and why you chose the geometry you did given what's on the ground here? Thanks!

On another note, I see you and several other recently active mappers in the Blacksburg area appear to be affiliated with http://BikeStreets.com, and have rather particular patterns of mapping viz splitting ways, I assume for routing purposes—could you help me understand a little more about what you're doing and why? (PS: Detailed, meaningful changeset comments are really helpful in that regard :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170357437

By the way, that's a really cute kitty cat in your profile photo! >^..^< Also, just a tip—its a great idea to write a detailed changeset comment explaining what you did and why you did it, so that other mappers can understand your intent :)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

On another note, I see you and several other recently active mappers in the Blacksburg area appear to be affiliated with BikeStreets.com, and have rather particular patterns of mapping viz splitting ways, I assume for routing purposes—could you help me understand a little more about that? Thanks, and happy mapping!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

Hi TheKegzster—welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for contributing! Your other two changesets appeared fine, but just wanted to let you know that I noticed this one had accidentally deleted the portions of Edge Way in both directions connecting it to Toms Creek Road, meaning that car and bike routing into and out of The Edge apartment complex will be broken—surely not what you intended here, and will presumably cause bigger problems for the cycle mapp application you're trying to use then you were trying to fix :)

Given the critical nature of the change, I immediately pushed a new changeset, #170372077 , fixing the problem. I also split Edge Way between the crossing and Tom's Creek into separate ways, in case that was what you intended to do instead. So its all fixed now, not to worry, and I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future ;)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170363846

Hey, thanks for adding sidewalks! Quick tip: when you've gone to the work of adding separate sidewalks like this, don't forget to add the `sidewalk:<left/right/both>=separate/no` tags on their respective streets, so they get properly tagged and picked up as such per approved OSM practice as well as accepted local convention. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169836414

Thanks for fixing the issue from changset #169697932 !
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169796175

Flagging as SEO spam per discussion; fixed by Udarian in changeset #169796175
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169697932

Thanks!

BTW, just a heads up you're welcome to join the new #local-nrv channel on the OSM-US Slack workspace https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/ , and/or the Map NRV Discord server https://discord.gg/TYyeyjYh (both created by other prolific local mappers) for a place to discuss things and chat with the local mapping community, in case you're interested!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169624416

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification! In that case, the correct tag would be `access=private`, combined with `private=employees` to precisely specify who it is private to. As a bonus, I also added in the full set of operator tags to the object, to make it unambiguous whom the employer must be. (There's also `access=government`, but its not formally documented, much less common and less precise since this space is specifically open to employees of the Blacksburg Parks and Rec department operating the park rather than any government official.)

I made the fix in changeset #169697721 , along with fixing the typo in the benches' `seats` capacity (set to `e` rather than the presumably-intended `3`): https://osmcha.org/changesets/169697721
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169521437

Hey, I noticed while fixing the access tag in changset #169521437 that the bench seats added here were also flagged, in this case with an invalid value for seats ("e" instead of a positive integer number, which appears to just be a typo). Given these are approximately 1.8 m / 6 ft wide which yields a typical capacity of 3 persons, "3" is the most likely intended number given its position directly adjacent to "e" on the keyboard in the same finger-sweep, and is also the easiest to mistake for it given the similarity in glyphs, I went ahead and set it to this value in changeset #169697721 https://osmcha.org/changesets/169697721
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169518632

Hey, FYI access=designated is meaningless (as it refers to explicit designation for a _specific mode of transport_) and should not be used. Per the wiki: access=designated

> NOTE! The exact key/value combination access=designated should never appear on an object. The value designated must be used with a specific mode of transport. Examples: bicycle=designated or foot=designated.

Given the inherent non-meaning and lack of context clues, I'm not sure what you meant here such to suggest something instead—could you clarify? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169521437

Hey, thanks! Seems though that `crossing:markings` was set to `ladder` rather than `zebra` on the node (which seems a bit odd that VT would revert to using the old ladder markings rather than zebra that they use everywhere else at least for newly-painted crosswalks). Also, I see it wasn't updated on the way, leaving them out of sync. Which one did you intend? Thanks!

Ah, in that case it goes in `loc_name`, then; see osm.wiki/Names#Local_names_(loc_name)

> loc_name=* is for the name of a feature as it is known locally, but only where this is deemed to be too much of a slang name or otherwise unofficial-sounding.

Also, one observation: I see you renamed the "Orange Building" to "VT Parking Services", and I noticed there was another larger building directly north of it also named "Parking Services". The official VT map: https://campusmap.aws.gis.cloud.vt.edu/ (which I don't use directly for mapping, just citing as a reference here) names the latter as "Parking Services Building" and the former as Residence (Orange House), which it at least appears to be built as (building=detached) per Streetside, etc. To confirm, is former building also explicitly named Parking Services per your survey?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169415756

One thing I needed more info from you on: the new crossing added here was tagged `crossing=uncontrolled` and `crossing:markings=yes`, but the type of markings (most likely `zebra`, as used near-universally elsewhere at VT) was left unspecified, and no markings are visible on any available source of aerial or ground imagery (usable with OSM or otherwise). Could you confirm that zebra markings are present here? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169415756

Also, in the same changeset ( https://osmcha.org/changesets/169441727 ) as a further improvement I added surface and foot/bicycle access tags to the sidewalk per local convention, as well as complete crossing tagging in line with standard practice.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169415756

Hey—thanks for adding this! I did notice a few issues, which I fixed where possible in changeset #169441727 along with some further improvements and other nearby fixes.

FYI, the specific things I noticed included:
- The link way between the south terminus of Beamer Way and the Huckleberry trail was removed (and without replacement with a noexit node) which breaks correct routing, despite there being an apparent physical path connecting the two. I added it back, this time properly modeling the path between them.
- The sidewalk crossed two service ways without an intersection node between them (or more properly, a crossing node/way), which I added.
- The sidewalk tags on the corresponding road needed to be updated to match your changes and not contradict them, which I did.
- The sidewalk lacked footway links at either end connecting it to the physically-accessible road junctions, which is important for proper routing. I added them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169415756

Hey—I noticed the added building wasn't actually given the name "HAE Pods" (or `loc_name`, etc). Was that intentional?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169419783

See changeset #169374037 for the fence, track and landuse improvements to the actual western section of Heth Farm
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169372828