Hi! Your addition here has major problems with its tags. If you are the business owner, welcome to OSM! Please reply here or message me and we can get it fixed! If you are a marketing company creating accounts on behalf of clients, please review your process and learn more about OSM's tagging schema before making more edits.

changeset/149546196

Hi! Your addition here has major problems with its tags. If you are the business owner, welcome to OSM! Please reply here or message me and we can get it fixed! If you are a marketing company creating accounts on behalf of clients, please review your process and learn more about OSM's tagging schema before making more edits. There's nothing wrong with adding businesses, but the way you're doing it is not helpful to anyone. (And likely does not improve SEO ranking.) For now, I've reverted your edit.

changeset/149546053

Hi! Your addition here has major problems with its tags. If you are the business owner, welcome to OSM! Please reply here or message me and we can get it fixed! If you are a marketing company creating accounts on behalf of clients, please review your process and learn more about OSM's tagging schema before making more edits. There's nothing wrong with adding businesses, but the way you're doing it is not helpful to anyone. (And likely does not improve SEO ranking.) For now, I've reverted your edit.

changeset/149546022

Hi! Your addition here has major problems with its tags. If you are the business owner, welcome to OSM! Please reply here or message me and we can get it fixed! If you are a marketing company creating accounts on behalf of clients, please review your process and learn more about OSM's tagging schema before making more edits. There's nothing wrong with adding businesses, but the way you're doing it is not helpful to anyone. (And likely does not improve SEO ranking.) For now, I've reverted your edit.

changeset/149546009

Hi! Your addition here has major problems with its tags. If you are the business owner, welcome to OSM! Please reply here or message me and we can get it fixed! If you are a marketing company creating accounts on behalf of clients, please review your process and learn more about OSM's tagging schema before making more edits. There's nothing wrong with adding businesses, but the way you're doing it is not helpful to anyone. (And likely does not improve SEO ranking.) For now, I've reverted your edit.

changeset/149545981

Howdy! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! Thanks for your contributions.

Hi! Your addition here has major problems with its tags. If you are the business owner, welcome to OSM! Please reply here or message me and we can get it fixed! If you are a marketing company creating accounts on behalf of clients, please review your process and learn more about OSM's tagging schema before making more edits. There's nothing wrong with adding businesses, but the way you're doing it is not helpful to anyone. (And likely does not improve SEO ranking.) For now, I've reverted your edit.

changeset/149545855

Howdy! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no issues I can see! Thanks for your contribution.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great overall! I think you made the right call here in adding access tags rather than deleting altogether. That's because if it's completely deleted, there's no information about whether the trail is unmapped but legal, etc. In this case, I think to further discourage use we could remove the name tag as well.
On a related note, I see there's an "Elk Meadow Shelter" feature too. If the trail is off limits, is there some other way to access the shelter? Or is that closed too?

Thanks for your contribution, and again, welcome!

For many tags such as osm.wiki/Tag:surface=, you should stick to established values. In this case I think the thickness or application method of the asphalt is outside the scope of OSM, so it should just be surface=asphalt.

Howdy! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changesets here. Looks great overall! Here are some tips:
- It's best to avoid abbreviations for things like addresses and names and stuff, since it's easy for a renderer to shorten a name, but can be less simple to expand an abbreviation.
- If you know the exact or approximate boundary of the mountain campus, you may consider changing the point to an area.
- For the maintenance barn etc., I think this is kind of on the border of a "descriptive name" - The name tag should only be used to describe the actual official or common name of something, not just to describe it. In this case, my suggestion would be to remove the name, and add the following tags instead:

building=barn (or building=shed)
operator=Denver University Maintenance

Like I said though, if the name really is that, and you feel like it belongs there then I'd say it's fine. :)

Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions! I might leave a couple other comments relevant to your other changesets.

Hi! You may consider improving the tagging here even further by moving the Navajo name to its own tag. Please see osm.wiki/Multilingual_names. Fortunately when we move to vector maps on osm.org soon, we'll be able to set the preferred language for all features! That'll be cool.

Anyway, in this case, I believe that would mean the following additional tag:
name:nv=Tse’Bii’Ndzisgaii

Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Howdy! Instead of tagging as a park, have you considered tagging Little Sahara boundary as a protected area? [1] Even though (imo) neither park nor protected area is perfect, I understand park to mean more of a developed green space that's more managed. [2]
Also, for the dune outlines themselves, please consider avoiding descriptive names. [3]

Let me know what you think! Hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to boss you around. Thanks for your import of this boundary, and your other contributions!

[1] boundary=protected_area
[2] leisure=park
[3] osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Looks great - Thanks for your contribution!

Howdy! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me, no issues! Just a side note that the access=* tag is understood to apply to all other access-type tags like bicycle=*. So in this case, since we have access=no, bicycle=no is redundant. But it doesn't hurt to be extra explicit.
Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great overall! Only issue I see is that you've left the wikidata tags on there. The wikidata id still links back to Outback Steakhouse, so in this case it's best to just remove it. I went ahead and did that. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contribution!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks super, nice job! Thanks for your contribution.

Yeah many are definitely being done by the same system or group. The thing that sucks is that AFAICT they are always on behalf of real businesses. If they were all misplaced or fake I'd have no problem just wiping them out en masse. But I just hate to straight up delete a node that's a real business with real info, only issue being the tag format. (I hate to punish the unaware business owners and miss out on real data for OSM, I mean. The marketing companies, however, can kiss my ass)

I've decided personally for now the ones that seem at least somewhat legitimate I'll fix (for now) but I've started removing many of them, see changeset/149275186

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything seems great to me! Only issue is that you removed a restaurant tag from the nearby Little Dom's. Looks like another mapper already came through and fixed that!
Anyway, Cheech's tags look great. Thanks for your contribution!