Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great, thanks for the correction.

Just a note, TIGER tags are somewhat vestigial - they were added when a bunch of streets were imported like 15 years ago. In the future, if you feel like the info is correct you can actually just remove them if you want. If you do want to keep them around, I'd suggest not modifying them so that later mappers can see what the original import suggested. (But I generally just delete them. :) )

Anyway, thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes.

It seems like this might be misplaced or spam. Can you give a source that this is really accurate info? (In-person survey is a valid source.)

- The Description tag should be a concise description of the feature rather than a free-form ad space.
- Opening hours tag follows a specific syntax. It can be a little tricky but using this format makes it machine-readable, meaning apps and whatnot can parse it reliably.
- Other tags like address also follow specific formats for the same reasons.

I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. That looks good to me! (Also, wow, someone really went crazy with the parking lots around here...)

For large deletions like this, it's best to be 100% sure - Have you visited this in person? I guess Strava heatmap is pretty reliable so if you haven't been there, this might still be OK as long as Strava really shows absolutely nothing.

Actually, looking a little closer, it seems like Lower Wasabi has an issue since it's one-way and not connected to anything on the north side. If you've been there in person, do you know if this connects to anything?

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me, looks great!

Great - thanks!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, except that the changeset comment field is for you to describe what changes you made, not the source. (There is also a source field for you to put "local knowledge".) Providing a descriptive changeset comment lets others review your work more easily. Thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Yeah, if you were there in person and there's no public access then you can definitely put access=no. For situations like this I'll also add a check_date=* tag to show a future mapper how stale the observation is. (Since it might be reopened in the future)

Since you requested a review on this changeset, I looked it over - Looks good to me, as long as you were there in person to verify the trail is really completely gone. It did have the informal=yes tag on it, meaning it may not have been signed or marked.

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. That looks good to me, no complaints! Welcome to OSM.

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, no complaints! Welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me, looks good!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks like this is put in a residential area, are you sure it's the correct location?

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me - looks great!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes.

- Opening hours tag follows a specific syntax. It can be a little tricky but using this format makes it machine-readable, meaning apps and whatnot can parse it reliably. (Looks like another mapper already fixed this formatting for you.)

Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136837468

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. (I know it's late - there seems to be a lack of experienced mappers watching out for new contributors requesting review.)

Anyway, no complaints from me, everything looks great! Welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me, looks good. Thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes.
Your edits all look good to me! One very minor note, while generic building=yes is totally valid, I usually find it easiest to categorize buildings more specifically at time of creation. (Only when it's obvious what they are.) So for example these could be tagged as houses.
Anyway, thanks again, and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks good to me, no complaints. Welcome to OSM!