Hi, just a heads up, this edit broke the Seaford boundary relation (relation/175640)

JOSM mangled my changeset comment. Should be: change "Brick" to "brick".

JOSM mangled my changeset comment. Should be: change "Brick" to "brick".

JOSM mangled my changeset comment. Should be: change "Brick" to "brick".

Corrected changeset description: Upgrading tagging and fixing geometry errors on Washington's river system, as discussed on the OpenStreetmap US Slack, channel #local-washington-state and as documented at osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Procedure/River_modernization

Merging duplicate nodes

Upgrading tagging and fixing geometry errors on Washington's river system, as discussed on the OpenStreetmap US Slack, channel #local-washington-state and as documented at osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Procedure/River_modernization

Hi, is there any information about what this particular protected area is? It has no name or other information:
way/46106470

Hi, this change seems to have broken the Short Pump CDP boundary: relation/207070

Hi, this change broke the Dayton, MN boundary, and now there are gaps in it. I'd like to fix it, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to go. Also feel free to hit me up on slack (username ZeLonewolf) if that's more convenient! -->
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Sounds good, thanks for the QA.

I think that the coordinates that you put on the name of the ferry route (way/716707470) is not quite right :)

It looks like I mistakenly tagged parking lots as historic districts based on the name. Sorry for the mistake and thanks for fixing it!

Tom, I tend to agree. An area marked "restricted" is almost certainly supposed to be =no or =private.

Thanks for helping us get rid of obsolete tagging :) The US community tends to be quite in favor of rooting out bad tagging.

I'm thinking the definition of access=no fits quite well here -- "No access for the general public", unless I am mis-reading the wiki definitions, this would not preclude employees from entering the site. I recall offhand that the state used to run an annual tour of Prescott Peninsula, so if there is very occasional public access allowed, from reading the wiki perhaps access=private is a good fit here. It is *certainly* not permissive, access is definitely controlled here, just based on what I saw visiting Quabbin Park.

Good catch! Not quite sure how that happened. All fixed now.

Also, this relation was left in a broken state: relation/1328532

Hi there, it looks like you put a riverbank polygon on top of a river area polygon. The US convention is to use natural=water+water=river for river areas, and also to make sure that adjacent river areas don't overlap.

I am not seeing a problem here - the places where natural=water was removed was the case of member ways of water body relations, which would be a correct removal. On a multipolygon, the water tagging only goes on the relation and not on the members.

Was there a specific object that you noticed?