Please do not delete features just to re-add them. You can simply adjust a tag, move nodes, or split features.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104079082

Please square buildings after editing.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103970484

Please make note of your imagery offset settings, and be sure the imagery aligns with existing features before adding new things. Otherwise, very nice work with all these sidewalks.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103873875

Remember to square building corners.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103873993

PS - I happen to be the person who maintains the county's legal boundaries data, and that's not even where the parcel lines are at.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103864586

OSM doesn't typically track features like lot and parcel lines.
Also, it looks like your edit modified existing administrative boundaries, and merged nodes/ways that should not have been. Please be careful with your edits.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103864586

also, it looks like that was totally my fault. sorry!

Hey there! Thanks for adding some details to OSM! Just a heads up, the natural=wood tag should apply to the "wooded area", not to the preserve itself. A single nature reserve may have areas of scrub, grass, open water, or woods, as is the case here.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101677383

hey there! i see you're making lots of edits lately, and that's awesome! local mappers make the best map. just a heads up, though, there are some long-standing tagging disagreements about 'marked' vs 'zebra' on crossings, particularly as 'zebra' means something very specific in certain jurisdictions. also, some of the crossings probably should have been updated to 'unmarked', as many have no clear markings at all. unless my imagery is just outdated, i guess. anyway, keep up the good work!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100968594

Welcome to OSM, and thanks for adding to the Plano area! A few pointers:
1) when drawing buildings, hit Q to square the corners once you've finished.
2) when tagging schools, refer to the wiki page (amenity=school) to see which tags go where. I've gone ahead and moved the relevant tags to the school grounds.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/75023498

Most of these seem to be CrossFit affiliate locations. While you're fixing the `sport` tag, you could add the proper wikidata tag: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2072840
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/74232999

It's just coming from their ArcGIS Server. The service URL is here: https://gis.dupageco.org/arcgis/rest/services/DuPage_County_IL/ParcelsWithRealEstateCC/MapServer/0

You can query the data straight from the OpenData site and specify a spatial query, using either the corners of the bounding box or a buffered point.

Alternatively, you can just open the feature service in something like ArcGIS Online or QGIS, where you can open up the attribute table, etc.: http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgis.dupageco.org%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FDuPage_County_IL%2FParcelsWithRealEstateCC%2FMapServer&source=sd

Great! I figured, but wanted to be sure. It wouldn't have been the first time someone mapped from Google Street View.

Just checking: "view from street" refers to you physically being present in this place, yes? Not a web-based street viewer, i.e., Google?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73939889

Please be careful with mass modifications like this. Buildings will frequently feature non-90-degree angles, such as with bay windows, and squaring a whole neighborhood can have unintended consequences. Also, as you are the original mapper of the houses in question, consider mapping the buildings in more detail. As features go, the address point is far more valuable than the footprint, so if you don't feel up to digitizing the full footprint of the houses, I might skip it altogether. If you're serious about adding building footprints to OSM, try reaching out to the local government entities. DuPage has it, but it's copywritten, unfortunately. Will County, on the other hand, has an excellent, explicit Open Geo-Spatial Data License, and they provide footprints as well.

https://www.willcountyillinois.com/County-Offices/Administration/GIS-Division/Data/Vector

https://www.willcountyillinois.com/Portals/0/WillCountyOpenGISDataLic.pdf
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/74003237

You are repeatedly submitting empty changesets. Please check your Maps.me settings.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73956972

forgot to add sources: local knowledge and Mapbox imagery

You can't just assert that it isn't vandalism. You've removed valid data involving features clearly visible in aerial imagery, for seemingly no other reason than your personal wishes. As the original data contained no identifying information, nothing about it constituted a breach of privacy.

Thanks for the added scrutiny! It's a pretty big import, and I'll admit that when I evaluated the random samples from each county, I was mostly just looking at positional accuracy of the footprints. I may just strip the "height" tags out of this county altogether if discrepancy are as common as it seems.

Haha. Sorry, I thought I'd fixed that. I'll correct these and adjust the rest of the import going forward. Thanks for the heads up!