Hi,
You must not have gotten my message earlier, so I'll try again. Most buildings have right angles, and the editor that you are using has a few tools to help you draw correct angles. When you select a building and press "q", it will fix the angles. Or you can right click on the building and press the button that looks like a square. The squaring tool can only do so much though, and buildings should be drawn much more carefully to begin with.

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I see that you have been focusing on buildings across NH, so I wanted to give some tips on mapping them. We try to map the bases of buildings, not the roofs. Most buildings have right angles, and the editor that you are using has a few tools to help you draw correct angles. When you select a building and press "q", it will fix the angles. Or you can right click on the building and press the button that looks like a square. Also, the Bing aerial imagery isn't great in a lot of places. I recommend using Esri World Clarity, Esri World, or Mapbox imagery when tracing buildings.

Happy mapping!

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap. In OSM, the access=no tag means that not even the landowners use the way. access=private means that the way is open to the landowners and their guests. Please see access=private for more information. I have checked the edits you made last night and fixed them accordingly.

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I reviewed this edit, as you requested. To answer your question about mapping trails in washes, there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. In a wide wash, trails often favor one side over the other, and in that case it makes sense to draw the trail on that bank. In narrower areas or where there isn't a favored side, then the stream and the trail can share nodes.

Hi,
In this changeset, you deleted the Sky Mountain Golf Course. In other changesets, you deleted many features at this and other golf courses. In OpenStreetMap, we try not to delete things that exist and instead improve upon them. Please be aware of this. I am partially reverting this changeset to restore the golf course that you deleted here.

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contribution! I reviewed your edit, as you requested. I went ahead and fixed the tags on the building in Moab to be in standard OSM formats. I also undid the changes you made to that building in Lehi. You set the tags to be the same as the building in Moab, including the address. Moab and Lehi are very far apart, and it'd be quite bad if someone tried to get directions to your business in Moab and they ended up at some house in Lehi!

Hi,
You seem to have missed the message that I sent a few hours before you made this changeset. Again, you deleted the surface tag from the ways that you edited here. The surface is one of the most important aspects of a road, and it should not be deleted in bulk like this.

Hi,
I'm glad to here that you are working to restore those buildings; that way I won't need to revert your changesets myself. I did see that the buildings weren't of the highest quality. The editor that you are using provides some tools that help you improve buildings. If you click on the + sign between nodes in a building, it will create a new node that you can move to where it's needed. Also, if you have a building selected and press the "q" button, it will make it so the corners are at 90° angles.

Hi,
In this changeset and in 109426429, you deleted a whole bunch of buildings. I'm assuming from your changeset description "we can do better" that you thought that the building outlines weren't good enough. In OpenStreetMap, we try to always improve on other people's work, not just delete everything. Are you currently working on restoring those buildngs? It's been almost a day, and I haven't seen you make any progress. Also, "we can do better" is not a great changeset description. Here are some examples of useful and informative changeset descriptions osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#Examples

Hi,
Is there a particular reason you have been removing surface=asphalt from asphalt highways? It seems harmful.

Hi,
I reverted this changeset because this service road was moved to be closer to the town line in 2020. The line as I mapped it is just an estimate, but it might appear on the newer imagery that Amazon has.

Hi,
The amenity=bank tag is for full service bank-like businesses with tellers and lending agents. You might be thinking of the amenity=atm tag. Please see amenity=atm for more information.

Hi,
I reviewed your edit, as you requested. I was able to confirm from other sources that the trail from Guardsman Pass was posted as closed for re-vegetation. However, I was not able to confirm that you can no longer walk around the east side of the lake to continue on to Lackawaxen Lake. I did read that dogs are not allowed within 100 feet of the lake, so maybe you wanted to add the tag "dog=no". I restored the trail around the east side of the lake.

Hi,
Thank you for updating the turn lanes here to reflect the new layout! I reviewed the edit, as you requested, and you did it totally right.

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I reviewed your edit, as you requested. I have a few things to point out. One is that buildings should only rarely be attached to roadways. And another is that we have access newer imagery, including layers that shows the new building. You can see the options by pressing the background settings button on the right hand side of the editor (the one that looks like three pieces of paper). And one last thing, to add a building you can use the Building preset. You can get to it by typing in Building in the search bar that appears after drawing the area.

Thanks again for you contributions in the Amherst/Nashua area, all the POIs you added look good!

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I reviewed the edits that you made today, as you requested. You asked about the trails labeled "Davis Hill". That was the name that the original mapper who added these trails used, and that was 7 years ago, long before these new names were created by the landowner. So thank you for updating the names! You replaced some of the names of trails that strayed off the property with "unnamed", but leaving them blank would be better (I went ahead and fixed that).

You also asked for a review on the changeset where you added the Spring House trail. We actually are allowed to use the Strava Heatmap to map things currently, so I improved the trail using that.

One last thing, on the Lewey's Loop trail, you added the extra " - Foot Traffic Only" bit to the name. That info was already saved by the bicycle=no tag that you added, so I removed it.

Thanks again for your contributions, and let me know if you have any questions!

Hi,
I'm glad to see folks working with UDOT to make OpenStreetMap better. I've seen more than one of you, so I suggest reading up on the Organized Editing Guidelines: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines.

Regarding the ATSPM tags, I still haven't figured out what they mean. Creating new tags is totally fine, though, as that Wiki page says, they should be documented in the Wiki :)

I'm guessing that the ATSPM tags might have something to do with the signed direction that the state route goes? If so, it is true that there isn't a widely accepted way to tag that yet. However, this summer we (as a United States community) have been discussing a scheme that would handle that, documented (as a draft) here: osm.wiki/User:Minh_Nguyen/Route_directions. If that is the sort of thing that you mean, I can talk to other mappers in Utah and see if there is interest in converting our state routes to this scheme.

The Girl Scout Camp is a great example of a business that should be on the map. They have a website where they advertise and rent out the place (before COVID). It was even properly tagged with access=private, meaning that only the GSU and their invited guests can visit.

The Bonanza Flat Conservation Area is under fee ownership of Park City, so the ownership=private tag wouldn't be correct here. The easement does allow Park City to regulate access to the public land, and any place that has been signposted as closed should be tagged with access=private or access=no depending on if city employees/contractors use those areas. However, it is a matter of accuracy and safety that any trail that someone can see on the ground belongs in OpenStreetMap with the proper tags. If people are using trails that have been closed, I recommend that the City put signs up on the ground saying those trails are closed.

Adding accuracy to names and regulations is much appreciated as oftentimes those get overlooked and have likely changed since the area became public land. There's a lot to do to improve the map in this area. Clumsy deletion of popular trails and access roads doesn't help.

Hi,
I see that you have joined OpenStreetMap today and spent the morning going on a deletion spree, including deleting places I have been myself. You also claim to be representing "landowners" from all across the Park City and Brighton area, which seems dubious. In OpenStreetMap, we map things that exist, including things on private property. I'm going to be reviewing each of your changes this morning and reverting the deletions that map valid ways. You might be interested in the ownership=private tag to describe ways that are on private land.

Fixed in 108777770