Welcome to OSM! You are correct that the Bing aerial photos are a little bit dated and do not accurately show the new Chemical and Biomedical Engineering Building. However, the previous edits in this area were done using PEMA imagery and are much more precise than the edits you've made. Please try to check multiple imagery sources before undoing other people's work.

As discussed in my reply message, adding highway=secondary overtop of the highway=service relation violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule and does not meet the tagging standards of highway=secondary. I will be reverting this changeset

Is this name for the road posted on any signage? The houses on this road have Baldwin St. as their street address

Thanks for your reply. I agree with your sentiment, but disagree that avoiding conflicting tags takes precedence over accurately depicting the NF boundary. For instance, Mount Evans Wilderness is a part of Pike and Arapaho NF, but there is no way of determining if or where it is part of either without viewing another map (which defeats the purpose of viewing it on OSM, imo). relation/5718244

I think it could pretty easily be implied by a user that the wilderness area does not hold the same protection_title or protect_class as the remainder of the NF, and could even be clarified by adding a note on the boundary and in the USFS wiki:
osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands/Forest_Service

I've already reverted a few NFs, but I wanted to make sure we were on the same page and avoid an edit war before doing any more!

Hi Dilys, I know this edit was made several years ago, but can you please explain why you excluded wilderness areas from this and many other national forest relations? These areas are legally within the boundaries of the NFs and fall under the jurisdiction of the USFS.

Hi haprager, maybe I missed it somewhere while reading through the bill, but does it specify that there is going to be any changes to the boundary of White Sands? Looked more like just an upgrade from national monument to park, not an addition or loss of land.

I'll ask again... please stop adding these farmland polygons. They are not contributing any value since there is already an existing farmland multipolygon. I will be deleting all of the ones you added in the Bellefonte area unless I get a reply.

These farmland polygons overlap and existing landuse=farmland multipolygon. I can understand adding them if you're trying to specify the type of crop on each plot of land, but these polygons don't accurately reflect the plot boundaries. Unless you disagree, I think it would be best to remove them to avoid having duplicate features

Please do not add landcover tags to protected areas! It is a gross oversimplification to say that all of the area within these boundaries is either forest or meadows. Unless you have any objections, I am going to revert your recent changesets that added landcover tags.

Why did you change this large portion of the Tuscarora Trail from highway=footway to highway=unclassified?

Why is just this one section of US 322 being retagged as highway=trunk? I can understand from after the Milroy exit to the intersection with PA 144, or extending to the railroad crossings in Lewistown. But this cutoff seems a little arbitrary.

:'(

It sounds like a loaded question... there's always room for improvement if you think they need refining! But in regards to this specific edit, I only modified another user's contribution such that it would agree with standard OSM tagging schemes and thereby render on the base map.

By removing leisure=nature_reserve, you've caused all of PA's state forests and game lands to no longer render. Per wiki definitions, these features are both protected areas and nature reserves so I strongly believe this changeset should be reverted. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for adding these businesses! Please make sure you avoid abbreviating any names (e.g. use street instead of st.)

Not doubting that it was since this was a pretty crude edit, but what is your source?

It really depends on your definition of abandoned:railway=rail. I know there are some people who are very passionate about keeping them if there's the slightest indication on the ground that there was once a rail. I have not surveyed Enola yard apart from looking at it while driving over the I81, but it was obvious from aerial imagery that some of the TIGER rails were no longer existent. So without a formal ground survey, and with recent imagery that didn't show any kind of major development over that section of the yard, I added the abandoned prefix. I don't think there's much value in removing them, but I'm also not adamantly opposed.

Thanks for adding this!! Nice to see other people working on PA parks and nature preserves

Thanks for catching this. These were added errantly during an import, looks like someone else already removed them.

Welcome to OSM! Thanks for adding these trails at Archbald Pothole SP. Are the names that you used the posted, official names of the trails? The name=* should only be used for what can be seen on the ground. More info about it on the wiki: name=*