Hi, this changeset has broken the Hallowell city boundary

Hi, this changeset has broken the Aurora city boundary.

In the case, the boundary ought to be fixed since there's currently a huge gap in it.

Can this be deleted? relation/406845

Hello - the community discussed this issue; the link to the discussion is here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/057723.html

As a result of this discussion, the following documentation was updated on the wiki: osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Please ensure that the name=* tagging used in this area is consistent with the community consensus for naming features.

Thank you!

Hey there - curious about your use of protect_class=22. There's an emerging consensus to move away from the cryptic numbering scheme and replace them with plain-English tagging. If you want to chat more...feel free to hit me up on OSM US Slack, username ZeLonewolf. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi, I noticed you have a number of imported parcels tagged protect_class=27. This tag (protect_class=27) is barely used and isn't supported by any renderer. Could these be tagged leisure=nature_reserve or protect_class=5 instead?

Hi - any idea what this boundary represents? way: way/660075730

Hi, the boundary of Winona appears to be broken, are you able to fix it?

See missing section: relation/127242

I'm composing a post to the tagging mailing list so that the broader tagging community can weigh in. I would encourage you to subscribe to the list so that you can participate in the discussions (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging)

It should probably also be leisure=nature_reserve from the look of it.

I'd say the use of landuse=recreation_ground is probably OK. The "name" tag does not appear to be used correctly. "name" is not used for descriptions, i.e. "CCBC Pitching Cage", "CCBC Main Score Board", etc.

I note
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions but it looks like our wiki documentation could be improved in this regard.

I would encourage reaching out to the tagging mailing list for a second opinion (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging)

That looks great! Heck of a project you're wrapping your hands around. The one thing that would help us coalesce in that direction is for mappers to work towards elimination of non-rendering protect_class values and document them as unused in the United_States/Public_Lands wiki page.

Here's that query for PA -- looks like there's only a handful remaining, so there's probably just some legacy usages hanging around. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11PX

Yup, looks like my bad mangling this property, good call on the inner member.

I built this utility from the national protected area database that should help:
https://zelonewolf.github.io/openstreetmap-pad-us-inspector/state/Pennsylvania.html

If I read it correctly, this should actually be tagged protect_class=3 as you note. leisure=nature_reserve is probably appropriate also.

Also, if you are working on these areas, you probably want to be aware of some of the current thinking on protected areas and where the US community is trying to go with it: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Park_boundary

Feel free to hit us up on the OSM US Slack, channel #local-pennsylvania or #tagging. Park tagging is actually a fairly frequent topic of discussion: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

¡Está hecho!

Gracias por aclarar, si debe eliminarse, también debe eliminar el objeto de relación. No es suficiente eliminar algunas de las formas. De lo contrario, la gente pensará que se supone que hay un límite, pero le faltan partes. Puedo borrar la relación por ti si eso ayuda. (relation/6066126)

Hope you can join us on the OSM US Slack!

https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Channel: #local-connecticut

172 / 5000
Translation results
¿Sabe que eliminó todo el límite, excepto un segmento pequeño? ¿Que estás tratando de hacer? ¿Está eliminando intencionalmente el límite de Metropolitana?

relation/6066126

Oh hey my bad. Looks like I've got some work to do to document/follow the process better. I did document the RIGIS data source on the Rhode Island wiki page. Although I did start from that data source, I spent two days hand-matching the polygons to imagery, deconflicting/merging/stitching together existing polygons, tracing out things that didn't match, redrawing the coastline and wetland areas, and fixing all of the JOSM findings. Also, a lot of polygons had to get upgraded to relations so that artificially inflates the delete count (since I can't just do a "replace geometry"). Let me know how you would like me to proceed; I would hate to lose all of this manual work.