Sorry I was restoring some of the relations that you deleted before and in the process I converted some blazed trails to relations. But moved all the information to relation so there is on data loss.

Makes sense, thanks for explanation. Yeah there is no good documentation and a boundary between area where people live and a forest is often blurry. I'd say that if there is a big chunk of wooded area or other land use, it's better exclude it.

Hi kylenz!
Thanks for drawing all those areas, but they look a bit too course. They cover also forests or water areas that are not really residential. e.g. way/1030339037
Typically what I am used to see are more finer boundaries of residential areas that cover only where the houses are. Like at this location osm.org/#map=15/41.7527/-72.8422

What are you trying to achieve? Is this some kind of larger project?

Perfect thanks! Do you know by any chance where is that historic district located?

Hi and thanks for your edits. Just a question, why do you think it is necessary to remove "Woodstock Hill Historic District" and all the address points?

Hi Erik, nice job!

Though just mind that you accidentally turned Elm Street into a driveway. :) I already fixed that.

Hi and thanks for editing!
One thing that I noticed is that you sometimes add layer=* to quite large structures. E.g. this whole [casino building](way/560866392) is as layer=-1. Because now it kind of implies that the casino is built under all the roads that it intersects with (the roads actually go underneath the building).

I would say that if there is another road (or object) that leads over the casino, then more safer is to split the road into fragments and assign layer=1 to the fragment that goes over the building. This way we would avoid having above/below conflicts at other parts of the large objects.
Cheers
Martin

Immediately stop deleting any objects!!!
You also set whole town boundary as water.

Hi and thanks for editing.

Just a few comments from what I noticed. golf=green should not be overlapping with golf=fairway. This can be done by making fairway a multipolygon. There is a picture here that explains is a bit better: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls
Also you don't need to add hole number as a name for golf=gole, since it is already recorded in ref=* tag.
Cheers

Hi dkwolf and thanks for editing!

When you removed the old school shapes you also deleted tons of other tags like address, contact phone, website... Are those information outdated or are they still ok?

Also I saw that sometimes you change names from e.g. XYZ Elementary School to XYZ School. Do you think it would make sense to keep those old names as alt_name?

I hiked those trails many times. There are no such names posted anywhere, no one knows or uses those names. You are just adding stuff from various online sources without knowing anything about the local situation.

Look, I spent weeks cleaning trails in CT and building hiking relations which is a VALID way of mapping that is preferred around the OSM. You are right now directly undoing all my work even though I asked you not to it.

In addition please do not delete hiking relations. They are valid data about where to hike and it doesn't matter if there is one or multiple members in the relation.

You drew railways through existing roads, parking lots, houses. There is no railway there.
Here railways are almost always completely removed. What you see from the imagery are clearings or paths that are now in their place. Those are not railways and have to be tagged appropriately.

Please do not add old railways unless you do a survey at the place to verify that they are really there.

Hi Greg,
those railways were completely removed so we don't add them to osm. But openhistoricalmap.org would be very happy to have the data.

Also could you please include source of the data to your changesets. In iD under Changeset comment you can click on "add field" and select sources.

"The Green Trail" etc. are definitely not official names.

Also would you mind including source of you data to your changesets? You are adding peaks with elevation and names, deleting existing hiking relations, adding stream names... which clearly couldn't come from Strava layer.

Hi,
Thanks for this awesome survey!

Hi zachesch202,
there is an ongoing project for (osm.wiki/User:Jnighan/Connecticut_Highway_Classification_Proposal)[CT road classification].
Before you do more edits to road classification, please talk to (@jnighan)[jnighan] or join #local-connecticut on (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/)[Slack].

Hi Rachit_,
what Lee wanted to say is Welcome to OSM and thanks for editing!

Two things that you could make better:
1. Try to have your changeset comments more descriptive so others have a better idea of what've done.
2. Before you move to the next location, hit the save button to upload your changes that are in the area you've just edited.

Cheers

Hi,
Thanks for editing!

The one thing I would like to point out is that golf green and fairway should not overlap. Please see:
leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Hi,
please do not delete existing objects such as forests or grass.

Hi and thanks for editing.

Just for the future, green and fairway areas should not overlap. Please see here: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls