OSM is a collaborative project. In no uncertain terms I say, nobody "owns" an area. We're all in this together.

This edit is broadly consistent with the principle of tagging the principal, long-haul routes between cities of regional importance as trunk, regardless of physical quality of the road. As the principal, long-haul route between Eureka and Redding, CA-299 clearly qualifies as a trunk road and is consistent with the consensus that has emerged in the US for classifying highways after months of national discussions on this topic.

It was there from the original import, looks like. I'd recommend deleting it.

They should be corrected also.

admin_centre roles are used for nodes that represent the capital or seat of something.

Did you really review over 100,000 buildings manually in a single day?

DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.

DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.

DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.

I agree with this changeset. It is broadly consistent with the emerging consensus in the US to tag trunk roads on the basis of importance and not physical characteristics. As the major, long-haul route between Albuquerque and Wichita, US-54 is a pretty obvious case for trunk based on the guidelines in:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Mappers in 26 states have drafted guidelines consistent with this guideline, and there's no reason that Oklahoma should be an outlier from the rest of the country.

Hi folks. It would be great if we could spend some time doing a real analysis of Texas roads and coming up with a scheme that everyone can agree with. It's really not useful to keep having these pointless edit wars.

Please see:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

This topic is pretty actively discussed on Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) channel #highway-classification

As far as I'm aware, the draft by Clorox is really the only work on classifications so far, and it doesn't go below trunk. So running around reclassifying roads without first deciding as a community how things should be tagged isn't really helpful. As far as I'm aware, there's no mapping between TxDOT functional class and OSM highway classification that anyone has discussed and agreed on.

See this example also of how park boundaries and land cover are layered:
osm.org/#map=17/47.56564/-122.65959

The tagging scheme is here:
osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands

See also: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

We do not add tags to "make the map look better", we enter valid geodata. natural=wood/landuse=forest is used on the actual areas that are tree-covered, not on boundary tags.

This is not correct. Wilderness areas are supposed to render as a boundary only. Land cover needs to be mapped as separate polygons.

Great catch! I just improved the river relation to follow USGS's definition. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwannee_River#/media/File:Suwanneerivermap.png) Thanks for reviewing.

Surfer's End is the local name given to the westernmost section of Second Beach. I'm open to other ways to tag this.

Hi, the US consensus view on highway=trunk is currently:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Wow, these relations are COMPLETELY messed up! I'm trying to untangle them currently, wish me luck.

Hi -

There are MAJOR problems with this import you've done of protected areas in Michigan! We're currently in the process of untangling all the damage here. First off, do not apply land cover tagging (such as landuse=forest) to protected area boundaries. Land cover needs to be mapped separately. Secondly, do not delete accurately-mapped land cover polygons. Thirdly, there are significant structural issues with the polygons associated with this import, with over 2,000 JOSM validator findings on Michigan protected areas.

Fourthly - imports like this need to be discussed (see osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines) so that these kind of problems can be avoided in the future.

Please cease all importing activities until it's discussed as required. Discussion on this topic is happening on the channel #local-michigan on Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) or can be discussed on the talk-us or talk-us-imports mailing list.

Hi, can you explain this edit? It does not appear to be consistent with the current NY state highway classification guidelines.