also note that both this building and the building to the north are the same motel complex. The POI was used to have some semblance that both buildings are part of the same motel. (Data from: drive by local visit within 4 months)

phone number appears to have been lost when moving the POI to the building itself. Please make sure you transfer all information if you are making moves like this, and when you do make a point to building transition, please also verify the information.

Looks like you and a bunch of others are doing a tag team edit on hotels and motels, thanks for the updates. However El Palomino Motel is actually the multiple buildings around this edited position (the office is marked on the map about 25m to the north), this position is actually a dilapidated swimming pool.

Thank you for your addition to Open Street Map. However this addition does not map out your business and conflicts with an existing business. Please move your POI to your building of business operations, else we may have to revert this addition. Thanks!

Thanks for checking, I feel like I've made so many edits that I'm bound to make a mistake somewhere but surprisingly don't see much feedback. Agreed there are still a lot of edits needed in Maine around here, this is just partial, feel free to continue, I'm out of here for now until I spot more broken turn restrictions or something else catches my fancy :)

Found your deletion. It looks like Amazon added it to get shipments their destinations better. Again I would suggest a revert.

Typically driveways are mapped, though calling it a service road may be a stretch. It's better to have them marked as private than deleted.

I'm not sure of the value of these bus ways. The ways aren't even part of the relation so I'm not sure if it would be used. IMO explicitly drawing these out isn't necessary and just makes the map messy, what is your opinion?

I'm not sure of the value of these bus ways. The ways aren't even part of the relation so I'm not sure if it would be used. IMO explicitly drawing these out isn't necessary and just makes the map messy, what is your opinion?

Hello, welcome to OSM!

While everyone needs to practice somewhere, please refrain from uploading your experimental changes. If you were trying to experiment with metrics tracking, I'd refrain from that, there are plenty of real errors that need to be fixed! Thanks!

I noticed a few areas marked as "landfill" in south Loveland and I don't quite agree these are truly landfills (that are used for municipal waste), rather people who seem to be car/vehicle/??? packrats and fill their property with things that appear to be "trash" where they view as "treasure". What do you think?

While agreed, this "road" should not be used for navigation, there seems to be a track road here. Perhaps it should be marked as an "unmaintained track road" instead of outright deleting it?

Is it a private road on private property but could be used in an emergency? May be better to tag as a private road.

Hey, I wonder you could convert this to a "T" type intersection. Looking at a lot of style guides it seems that drawing curved lanes through intersections for individual lanes isn't suggested, plus it makes maintaining turn restrictions a hassle (which was what I was trying to fix). Though this is not exactly the same case, https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/71825/traffic_light-complex-intersection is one way to look at things. Just wondering what your ideas were?

Hey, I've been trying to correct turn restrictions that have fewer than 3 members. I noticed in this changeset there was a new relation relation/10060547 placed that has only 1 member. Just wondering what the intent was if you remember?

"Cpnsolate" appears to be misspelled but what are the references for this building?

Hi, Welcome to OSM. I'm not exactly a reviewer (I don't even know how the review process works) but noticed your edits while browsing the area, and thanks for updating Timnath Reservoir Outlet! I know I was editing around here recently and completely missed the fact it was routed over roads after the massive construction project, yikes! Thanks for correcting this!

Anyway I suspect an official reviewer would take a rigorous compare of before and after, and I'm only doing this on a cursory visual inspection, I noticed one thing that you could add are bridges and/or culverts along the new canal. In iD, you can draw a line(way) between the cutouts you left and mark it as the canal. Then you can go into the tags for "structure" and click on "tunnel". This will create a culvert that will now link two pieces of waterway. Name the new line the same as the rest of the line and we now have a continuous waterway!

Hope this adds a bit to your tips and tricks to build a better map, and once again welcome to OSM!

Hi, I'm confused, here's a broken version 1 turn restriction missing to/from members on apparently bicycle paths, was this intentional to make sure bicycle traffic does not make turns?
relation/9736494

Hi, I was going through broken TRs and was trying to make sense of relation/9538272 - Looking at the pavement, it seems that the two cross roads monteith and casey aren't really straight connected to each other. As I am not local I don't know if this is latest, so I can't fix this. Does this intersection now match imagery, and is this Only Right Turn specific to casey WB turning onto old cullowhee -- and should there also be a no-straight-on turn restriction from monteith to casey?

Hi, I was almost tempted to rip up a lot of your edits here but figured I should ask first. I was working through broken turn restrictions and noticed that you had a few in this section of the road where no u-turn turn restrictions were missing segments of roads. I started to fix them but got distracted by the number of turn restrictions necessary to clarify all the intersections now visible. What I was about to do to simplify this was to remove all the right turn ramps and this would save a lot of turn restriction work. Would lose a little detail but at least in my opinion it doesn't lose much functional detail. What do you think?

There were also two left turn ramps that have the wrong oneway direction that must be fixed, will also note that here.

Any additional comments or ideas about this?

I don't quite understand these two relations:

relation/10042200 (broken no u-turn)

relation/10042201 (only u-turn)

Looking at streetview these shouldn't be there... since you have version 1, curious what you know about these turn restrictions?

I may delete these TRs in a bit if I don't hear back... Thanks.