Adding the name tag to route relations that do not have a name distinct from their reference goes against current community consensus. Please see discussion here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/planned-edit-to-re-tag-descriptive-names-in-road-route-relations-in-the-united-states/1

Hi, I noticed many buildings mapped by you are not properly squared off. After you draw the outline of each building, push "Q" to square off the corners. This will make the map much neater.

reverted

changeset/170261158

I accidentally dragged a driveway oops

Forgot to change the changeset comment. It's supposed to say: "reverted way that was accidentally dragged"

I added the name "Pheasant Trail" based on the address data. Specifically, there is a cluster of houses that had the street name "Pheasant Trail." The E-911 dataset from the Rhode Island GIS (from which the NAD derives) also has this street name.

However, these sources sometimes make mistakes!

On the wiki page for Canadian road classification, it specifies that secondary roads should be multilane/divided and have higher speed limits than surrounding roads. Since this road is multilane and has a speed limit of 50 kph (10 kph higher than other nearby tertiary roads), I chose to upgrade the road to secondary. Also, there are a slew of businesses along the road, indicating that it has a higher traffic volume than surrounding roads.

Wiki page: osm.wiki/Canada/Tagging_guidelines/Road_classification#Secondary

The Golden Gate Bridge is not comparable to the Coronado Bridge; the Golden Gate Bridge is part of a large freeway section of US 101, whereas the Coronado Bridge is a short spur off of Interstate 5 that consists entirely of itself.

Hi, please do not revert my reversions without responding to the concerns I spelled out in a comment under your previous changesets, including this one: changeset/165607704

OpenStreetMap relies on effective collaboration, and edit wars are not conducive to this goal. Responding to concerns from other mappers in a civil manner is much more useful for resolving a disagreement than reverting another mapper's changes.

That being said, I will elaborate on the points I made in my previous changeset comment. The classification of roadways in the US places a much heavier emphasis on function over form, meaning that the places that a road connects have a much greater influence over the physical traits (e.g. width) of a road.

Bridge Street, Cole Street, Elm Street, and White Street are quite short, and mainly serve to provide access to businesses and houses along those streets. It would not make sense to use those streets as through streets for accessing other parts of the town, since Main Street and Stratton Street already serve this purpose with much more effectiveness.

Please see osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance for more information.

Why did you retag U.S. Route 1 to secondary? It is a national highway, and this segment in particular connects two large towns, meeting the criteria for highway=primary.

Why is this road tagged as highway=motorway? It seems a bit short to be a motorway.

Also, the streets I mentioned above do have some houses along them

Doesn't mean they're tertiary either. Tertiary roads should have some significance in the local road network (i.e. act as through roads). However, streets like Bridge Street and Elm Street do not serve this purpose. highway=unclassified is a more appropriate tag.

Hi, thank you for your edits and your interest in OpenStreetMap! Some changes to the road classification (the highway tag) do not conform to US road classification standards. Specifically, small, dead-end roads, such as Curry Br Road, should be residential/unclassified, not tertiary or above.

It really depends on if the street signs still say "Halsey-Sweet Home Highway"

Yes that was a mistake. I have fixed it.

I believe I meant to put shop=trophy. In either case, the shop is a duplicate of a nearby one. I removed it just now.

Eh... they could still be permissive. Permissive is when something is privately owned, access is granted by default, but the owner has every right to deny access at will.

The census data being referenced actually gives the population of the whole municipality, not the village being represented by the place=* node.

The census-designated place of Deerfield, MA, which encompasses the immediate environs of the community, has a population of just 479. This fact, along with the lack of shops and amenities in the community urges me to classify Deerfield as a village.

While that may be true, it is much easier for a data consumer to visually display (i.e. on a map) the extent of a residential area using landuse polygons than buildings.