Resolved above issue in changeset/161863933

Hello, as part of this changeset Auten Road (way/787967132) was moved, as a whole, roughly 50 feet to the south - possibly result of an unintentional Move command used when the whole feature was selected. This caused some crossing ways, partially addressed by changeset#156691847 - and overall misaligned the road. Please take caution, especially with a large changeset such as this, and check the elements you've modified before saving your edits publicly.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156285571

Hi, this new natural=wood feature (way/1351864058) was drawn to almost exactly overlap the existing landuse=grass feature (way/1303809959). If you believe natural=wood to be a more accurate descriptor of the land cover at this location, it's recommended to re-tag the existing land cover feature, rather than add a second conflicting way on top of it.

Corrected by changeset/161576611

Hi, a couple comments:
* the new building (way/1351224883) overlaps an already-existing building. If this was intended to map a sub-part of the building with different height for 3d rendering, this part should be tagged as building:part=yes rather than building=yes.
* the name=* tag for way/1351224883 is all lowercase, which should not be used unless a given place's name is stylized as such in the real world.
* typically places should only be named on the map once to reduce clutter. In this case the apartment complex "The Ivy at Berlin Place" is already mapped and named as residential=apartments, way/15907297

For reference:
osm.wiki/Names#Good_practice
building:part=*

Welcome to OSM and thanks for adding to the map! A couple notes on this changeset:

* Typically, it is not advised to use landuse=residential to cover a large region as though it were administrative boundaries; use it only for land area predominantly used for residences. i.e. it shouldn't overlap farmland, lakes, etc. See the wiki here: landuse=residential

* This area was added to the relation for the administrative boundary Keeler Township (relation/10229316), perhaps by mistake? The area does not in reality define any part of the township boundaries.

* While Sister Lake is locally known to be the region around these lakes, it is not an incorporated community with any defined administrative boundaries. Typically in this case a point feature should be used to mark the general location of the place rather than an area boundary. In this case, a populated place marker already exists on the map: node/153496066.

I will work on correcting what needs to be corrected. Hopefully this is helpful feedback to keep in mind going forward. If you have questions or comments feel free to respond in this thread.

Hi, a node in County Highway U (way/21427494) was pulled out of alignment and snapped to water (way/800094523). Corrected in changeset/160322047
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159963205

Hi, a node in County Highway U (way/21427494) was pulled out of alignment and snapped to water (way/800094523). Corrected in changeset/160322047
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159963205

Please review your edited features and the extent of your changeset before saving. While it looks like the intent of this changeset was to add building footprints near Myrtle Beach, you also edited a couple service roads in Boalsburg, PA, and pulled a node far from its correct alignment, overlapping buildings and other roads. I'm sure this was unintentional and probably caused by panning around the map to browse before saving the changeset. Ways in question are: way/763190671; way/763190673
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160038191

When buildings have recently been demolished but are still visible on most aerial imagery, it is good to retain the feature on the map as a note to mappers. However, the appropriate tag for such a feature is building:demolished=*. It looks like the building was tagged as landuse=farmyard and given a note in its name field, which is improper. I have corrected the tagging in changeset/159889477. Thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158551966

I have gone ahead and made the above mentioned change myself - see changeset/158793710.

Unless there's signage or some other documentation of this building (way/1328569897) being titled Studebaker Building "in South Bend", I would suggest removing the "in South Bend" modifier. The addr:city tag and its location on the map already specify this. One way to add detail to the building through its title might be name="Studebaker Building 84" since locally this building part is still recognized by its number in the old factory site.

Hi and welcome to OSM! It looks like there was an error in this changeset where the intersection of parking aisle (way/872141102) and alley (way/17534416) was pulled far from its true alignment and snapped to a bus stop node a few blocks south. I have reverted this in changeset #157311021. Try to use caution when panning around the map while in the editor, to make sure you don't grab a node and edit it accidentally. You can also verify what's changed prior to saving your edits by reviewing the sidebar in the iD editor.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157178198

Hi, I have removed the description=* tag added as part of this changeset as it violates OSM policy on advertisements. See description=*#No_advertising for more info. Reverted with changeset #156773391

Hi, as part of this changeset, Fillmore Road (way/17540181) was changed from unclassified to residential. This road is not a residential road per highway=residential as it not primarily an access road for residences. In fact, there are no residences along this length of road. Please revert these segments to highway=unclassified.

No joke, the TIGER lines in the town of Seaforth are some of the most jacked up I've seen yet

I appreciate the catch, corrected this!

Typically the accepted style is to map actual present land use rather than zoning designation of parcels. I've updated a couple of these commercial areas near Hanna, UT as an example: changeset/151511195

This changeset mistakenly changed a natural:wood area feature to a house. I have reverted the edit on this feature (changeset #151291998).
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150987465

Whoops, thank you for the catch! That sidewalk had been attached to the parking lot so it looks like I missed deleting the crossing node when separating them. Fixed now!

Thanks for your attention to this. I am in the area and verified in person yesterday that the lot has been reopened in its usual capacity. The lot had been closed for installation of a geothermal energy field. Generally it's recommended to only tag an area/ways as under construction if there is construction visible, and wait until construction is over to verify if features have been permanently removed or replaced with something different before deleting the features. The realignment of Moose Krause Circle as part of this changeset is correct, but the ways deleted within the parking lot should be reverted.