We typically don't tag temporary features in OSM. If the area is set aside as a permanent recreation ground then it should contain the name of the grounds not just one event. It is possible the area does not have a name, then just tag it as landuse=recreation_ground
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158755858

Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158756093

Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158756093

#TIP: street names in OSM are spelled out. The reason is that software has a hard time unabbreviating
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158755218

The street name is not ices.com/
addr:street 17th Avenue Northwest 17th Avenue Northwest Suite 1842. I'm going to revert this edit as well.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158762694

This building actual address is 19214 Bothell Way Northeast. Confimed with county data and bing street side imagery. I'm going to revert this edit.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158762614

This property is designated as residential according to the county. The website does not show any customer locations. Can you confirm this is a location that is open to customers otherwise it should be removed.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158762571

Same issue - business should be added as a node. Also street names are spelled out in OSM. The reason is that software has a hard time unabbreviating.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158762416

Because the building can hold more than one business, the business should be added as a node. Can you fix it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158762373

Thanks for finding my mistake. Fixed

The link you gave is in Sweden. What exactly needs correcting?

Can you tell me what "Add zis a ba as Stillaguamish trust land." does?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158687810

Can you tell me what "Add zis a ba as Stillaguamish trust land." does?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158687810

#TIP: street names are spelled out in OSM. The reason is that software has a hard time unabbreviating. Could you expand the names of the roads you added and updated? I'll send you more info in a message.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158676103

Google does not allow us to use any information we find on their websites. I'm going to revert this changeset.

Bienvenido a OpenStreetMap.

Un par de sugerencias, en lugar de eliminar y volver a dibujar un objeto, como un búnker, sólo modificar la geometría del objeto existente. Eso guarda la historia de la característica.

Por favor, deja buenos comentarios sobre los cambios. Consulte osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments para obtener más ayuda.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158447187

A couple of recommendations. At the roundabout, The links connecting to DC53 should also be named DC53, not DJ663.

Second, It looks like you acidentally connect the road, DJ663 to the residential landuse. Since the two objects are different type they are not usually connected.

The rest looks great. Happy mapping

I'm not sure I understand what the rectangle of a footway is at some of the corners. It looks like you may be trying to create a highway=pedestrian + area=yes. Typically we see these plazas and squares. However, routers really can't do anything with them. I would suggest removing them.

Since you are mapping sidewalks you may be interested in the work that the University of Washington Taskar Center is doing. They have a great app, accessmap.app and have done a lot to help map sidewalks with opensidewalks.com. OSM US also has a Slack channel, osmus-pedestrian-working-group that is improving how sidewalks are mapped. You are welcome to join at osmus.slack.com.

I'm from the Data Working Group - we are interested in learning why so many buildings were removed. Is there any documentation to confirm these buildings are no longer there?

Yep - 315 should be removed. My mistake. I copied the node over to the building and then merged the node with the building. Should have caught that.

Fixed now. Thanks for finding it.