Please do not remove landuse=conservation in massachusetts. It is in local use, despite global opinions. Also please do not make changes like this in changesets with descriptions that are inaccurate. This has nothing to do with service roads. This kind of tag removal by non-locals borders on vandalism.

Please do not vandalize by deleting landuse=conservation, and please do not hide this in changesets about duplicate nodes.

Please do not delete landuse=conservation in massachusetts. While this is arguably deprecated globally, it is very much in use locally. And please do not bury it in changesets that purport to be about service roads.

This changeset was not ok - it added service roads that are duplicative and right next to existing tracks. I have fixed some of the resulting problems.

I removed access=public, because that's not a defined tag. Also, probably it's not ok to be there at night, so I just left off the access tag.

This is not a motorway. I'm changing it back to trunk. This is based on observation from driving on it. Please discuss on talk-us-massachusetts@ if you disagree.

This highway is not trunk. It is very congested stop and go with many at-grade intersections. It essentially meets none of the characteristics required for trunk.

This seems like it should be leisure=recreation_ground, rather than park.

This is not landuse=forest; it is actually conservation land and logging is very occasional. I'm going to change it back to landuse=conservation, but wanted to mention this before doing so.

This new way appears to have been an editing mistake; I have removed it.

I see now that you fixed amenity=school from GNIS. I visited Danforth Art yesterday, and they are not yet in the new building. So I dropped the tourism=museum (which caused me to misroute trying to get there yesterday :-).

The Danforth Museum of Art is still (today) at 123 Union Ave. Can you explain this?