And personally I don’t think that just being there to explain his change sets is good enough, he really should add good change set comments since it allows for easier collaboration along with allowing other contributors that work on improving the map in Miami dade to get a good idea of what was done in the commit at a glance, OSM is a community effort after all, we must all do our best to work together and good change set comments in my opinion are an important pillar of that.

He added some service roads, tracks, fences and farm auxiliary buildings.

Next time can you please leave a change set comment that better describes what you did in the commit. For more information see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Why did you remove that this is an island, it certainly looks like and island

next time can you leave a change set comment describing what you did, something like "updated multi-storey at Jungle Island" would have worked well enough for this commit; for more information see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments .

It is still best practice to leave a commit message describing what was done in the commit for other contributors to better understand what was done at a glance and since all of these publicly available and is essentially a VCS of its own so the same reasons having good commit messages in those contexts also apply here. It stands that “.” Isn’t a good change set comment so I would really recommend that you take a good look at osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments and in the future leave better change set comments as it has been recommended to you in the passed, see osm.org/user_blocks/15322.

Changeset comments are useful to allow others reviewing change set to understand what happened in the commit and promotes trust. They are also just community consensus best practice. All commits are public so its good to have good descriptions for what each commit for the same reason change set comments are used in other VCS’s, allowing for changesets to be easier found when trying to track down an issue and when it was introduced. For more information please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments.

Next time can you please leave a change set comment that better describes what you did in the commit. For more information see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

A few questions:

First of all, I was wondering why you changed the crossings from crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked since uncontrolled is the standard tagging for marked crossings these days. from what I can tell the crossing ways and nodes were already tagged correctly.

Second of all if you look at the latest imagery (Esri World Imagery) the crossing:markings on these ways is ladder not zebra and that is what it was tagged as before this commit so I am wondering why you made those changes.

Happy mapping,
Udar

a few notes

1:
"bicycle=not specified" is not used anywhere else in the database according to taginfo (as seen in https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle#values ) so should not be used either remove the tag or change it to yes.

2:
Southwest 119th Avenue seems much more like a highway=unclassified then a highway=service and should have been left as it was.

next time can you leave a change set comment describing what you did, something like "updated multi-storey at Jungle Island" would have worked well enough for this commit; for more information see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments .

crossing:signals=no is implied on uncontrolled crossings so there’s no reason to add it to uncontrolled crossings, not having signals is the whole point of an uncontrolled crossing. It’s like adding foot=no on a highway=motorway, it’s implied.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151695864

this commit removed all the history from the buildings by deleting everything so I am reverting and fixing by hand

changeset/151032667

yes there is a way, ill do that tomorrow, as for the footpath it seems to be connected to other foot paths that are not mapped yet.

question:
why did you delete all the buildings just to add them all again as new ways, as a general rule of thumb its best to edit existing ways as to preserve history on the ways. also why did you delete that foot path on the inside of the buildings, have they removed it because if they didn't it shouldn't have been removed.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150902559

crossing=uncontrolled is the correct tagging (that’s what is in the iD tagging schema) please stop changing tagging to crossing=marked.

Can you please stop changing crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked, these crossings were tagged as uncontrolled on purpose so please stop moving them back to the old tagging schema.

Happy mapping
Udar

Question:
I was wondering why you removed this parking lot, it is still on the latest imagery.

Happy mapping
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149848098

Small note here, seamark:type=* is intended for features todo with boats and other things that navigate on water. Since this was added on land features not close enough to water this is incorrect. The same applies to waterway=lock_gate since it to is for water based features and from what I can tell must be placed on something like a canal, river or other waterway. If you want to indicate that there’s a locked gate somewhere you can add a gate and add the tag of locked=yes.

Happy mapping
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149847522

noexit=yes only goes on the end of a way so placing it here would be wrong. noexit represents a spot were a road that may be close to other ways does no connect to those ways, the road it’s on doesn’t have an exit.

Happy mapping
Udar
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149846120