Ugh ok thanks for catching this

Might need to be tagged as a historic route. I'm not sure what the on the ground situation is

Which of the 1200 relations are you referring to?

Commented in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bot-edit-proposal-fixing-wikipedia-tags-pointing-at-redirects-in-usa-where-it-can-be-done-reliably/101417/3
linked from this changeset

This was an incorrect change. The wikidata was wrong and now the wikipedia tag is matching the wrong wikidata :)

I think

osm.wiki/Highway_link

spells out pretty clearly how _link classification should be used. To be honest, I'm not sure where you came up with the idea of inserting link roads in those spots. Also, on a practical level, having a road change classification like that may do funny things to routing algorithms.

In the photo I took, there is a both a gate (presumably, normally left in the open position) and the word "PRIVATE" on the "Cedar Rock Meadow" sign on the stone pillars that hold the gate. Nothing about this indicates that permission has been granted.

Driveway seems reasonable to me. It only has a sign that says "BITTERSWEET FARM" and then below it "PRIVATE PROPERTY".

The little dangling edge of the trunk road where it changes to a different classification needs to happen at the intersection, not at these stubs.

way/1234022834

Hi,
I noticed that you created short segments of _link roads in order to connect side streets to main roads, for example this one: way/1248883270

These should not be primary_link, etc. The connecting street needs to connect all the way to the road it intersects without a _link segment.

Change reverted; roads are posted private. See also @StreetSurveyor/blocks

changeset/147334707

Change reverted; roads are posted private. See also @StreetSurveyor/blocks

changeset/147334707

It happens sometimes, and it's not a big deal.

It's always acceptable to correct an error. I don't need permission.

In previous changeset discussions, mappers reached out to you pointing out the problematic mapping practice of aligning landcover to parcel lines. Please stop doing this. As it is we will have to do a bulk revert of much of this work to correct it. It takes much less time to revert changesets than it does to make them in the first place (basically, you make a list of the changeset IDs, drop them into the revert tool, and seconds later they're gone from the map). So it is in everyone's interest for you to stop what you're doing and to engage with the community (community.openstreetmap.org United States forum or slack.openstreetmap.us #local-connecticut or #tagging channels).

Ultimately you are going to waste a lot of your time and some of others' time with edits that will get removed at the push of a button.

This is an incorrect mapping practice and definitely not necessary. Please do not map protected area boundaries with a natural=* tag. Do the land cover separately or not at all -- that's the standard practice.

Thanks!

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Not sure, but we were amused by:

way/53424226/history

Thanks!