Reverted in changeset/32954519.

Please stop changing roads into residential. These aren't residential roads. You've done this in a lot of your changes in different areas and it's not okay.

These nodes seem to have been part of a broken upload or something. After using a whole bunch of them for tracing buildings that were presumably their originally intended purpose, I realized that it's more work to do it that way than just create new nodes.

Hi, I reverted this change because it removed other data about the area (that it's named Taft's Corners) when it added yours. When adding your store to the map, you should make sure it's a completely new object being added. When doing that, you can also make sure it's positioned correctly.

Also, your website says you're located in New Jersey. Is this a new location?

I reverted this changeset in changeset/32817100 . Reasoning is discussed there.

Spear Street is definitely tertiary, and the geometry changes at Quarry Hill road match neither the (best available) VCGI imagery nor Bing imagery. The mistagged geometry additions near the Sheraton weren't really worth making the revert more difficult to try to save.

I'm local to this area and have never heard these names used. Additionally, I could find no references to them online. I asked in changeset/32629120 for any more information about them, but got no reply.

Hi,

Where does this name come from? I've never heard it and I'm very local to the area. I also can't find any references to it online.

Looks like this accidentally put a zigzag in Route 30

This edit changed the tag "heigt" to "heigth"

Since there was no reply, I reverted this in changeset/31775218.

This updates changeset/31324155 to use the official parcel information, as the rest of the CC boundary does. This was not a new acquisition by the college, so it must have been missed in the original boundary work.

While making this change, I noticed that the college recently acquired the house next door, 436 Maple. However, I also saw a statement that they planned to continue its use as a single-family home, so I'm leaving it out of the campus outline.

Oops, the changeset here clearly should have been Pearl Street, not Pine

I don't know anything about railways, so it's possible things are wrong here. In particular, I'm not sure the track tagged as the main route is correct (but the old one managed to start at one track and end at another with no valid path between them...)

Are you sure there's a park there? Satellite photos don't show any indication of one, just some green space with no amenities or means of access except through someone's yard.

I fixed this myself in changeset/29766916.

These roads should not be connected. The motorway has a bridge over the smaller road, and there is no way for a vehicle to go between them.

Hi, what's the story behind the part of this change in Burlington? It doesn't seem to fix any connections, just move some nodes and put a weird kink in the road/footways.

You might want to take another look at this, Hutchins Street probably shouldn't be zigzagging like that.

This partially reverts changesets 27171483, 26912045, 26911697, 26910452, 26910130. Among their positive changes, these changesets broke the boundary for Champlain College. There were a number of other negative changes included as well, including some POIs deleted, and building outlines being matched to roofs instead of ground. Both the positive and negative changes were outnumbered by neutral changes, like nodes being moved tiny amounts (centimeters or less). I reverted the changesets, then attempted to recreate the positive changes. Some changes were involved to route relations for US 2 and US 7--I'm not sure reverting kept them correct, but they were very broken anyway, so I will fix their entire lengths in a separate changeset.

Hi,
This looks like an import. In general, imports are supposed to follow the procedure at osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines, which includes things like talking with the community so they can discuss the potential impact, making sure the data is high quality and can be properly matched up with data that's already there, and making sure the new data is licensed in a way that's actually legal to import.

For this changeset in particular, the data seems good, but I noticed a few places where it didn't match up well with the existing data in the map, either because there was a road to the water nearby that the new data didn't match with or because the slipway was already marked and the new data added a second copy of it.

More problematic, though, I couldn't find any license for the data. All I could find was the site's general copyright statement: "This site is protected by copyright and trademark laws under both United States and International law. All rights reserved. © 2011 - 2014, NH Fish and Game Dept." That isn't enough to say it's legal to add to OSM.

I recommend you post on the imports mailing list describing the data and the work you did to add it. This will give the community a chance to look through and discuss the changes.