don't limit your features to the task tile! map the whole thing!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162399742

No worries! Editing where there's tree cover is tough. If you have a decent GPS, you can try to record your path as you walk along the edge of the beach, then use that GPS trace to guide your edit.

Your edit inadvertently tagged the entire pond and wooded area as a beach. I put it back to normal for now, but if you can't see the thing to map it, you can always leave a map note so that others can try to add the feature when imagery gets updated, maybe.

could you please try to keep your changeset areas smaller? your comment suggests you were adding buildings, but you were editing landuse features based on outdated imagery as well. a smaller, more focused changeset would make it easier on others who are reviewing recent edits.

Was this an honest mistake? These features are not beaches.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162183737

ah shoot, source should say Plainfield Ordinances, not Oswego

when you draw adjacent landuse areas, make sure you snap the nodes together. no reason to draw what are essentially the same nodes twice.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160919548

natural and landuse features are allowed to overlap. they don't always, but it's acceptable to have residential areas and woods overlap each other.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161063554

remember, don't clip your landuse features to the edge of the task square. map the entire feature, even if it goes over the edge of the area
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161112446

Hi Elliott!

It's definitely not an experiment! I believe the idea was discussed either on the OSMUS Slack or OSM World Discord, but it would have been quite some time ago.

I personally do not like the address-on-building approach because it cannot be applied consistently. Townhomes, retail strip malls, duplexes, and the like, cannot have an address placed on the building way, as the building encompasses multiple addresses and points of interest. Addresses as separate points can be applied regardless of single/multi tenancy.

I believe the address-on-entrance method is more useful as well. If I am looking for 123 Some Street, having the address on the entrances means that I am getting routed to the correct means of accessing whatever is at that address.

It may not matter much with single family detached housing, but for a larger building with multiple entrances, getting routed directly to the correct entrance would be ideal. In such a situation, there's not a good way of clearly indicating which entrance goes to what address, short of tagging them to the same node. This method requires no additional processing step to find the entrance node of a given address, and leaves no room for ambiguity.

Pulling back and applying the addresses to an area rather than a point is to make them less precise, and possibly less functional.

Hope that helps explain what we're going for here.

you've got "entrance=main", but the addresses aren't connected to the building's outer boundary. can you please fix these?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161429568

hey there! thanks for contributing to the MR project, but we're trying to move the addresses onto the entrances, not merge them with the footprints.

hey there! nice to see you got OSM Go figured out.

just a tip: always leave a changeset comment, even if it's something simple like "updating information for restaurants"

is that *really* a shrubbery? looks like you meant scrub?

fixed

hey, i wouldn't put private on these paths, this preserve is open to the public

sorry, but in OSM we map what exists. if something has legal reasons precluding access, that can be tagged accordingly, but 2024 imagery shows that this road certainly connects through here.

a couple of these farmland areas were multipolygons with only a single outer ring. not sure how you managed that in iD, but be careful. a multipolygon can be valid for these kinds of features, but you'd expect there to be some kind of inner ring, like a hole punched out or something. since these were just simple areas, they should have been closed ways, not relations.

hey, don't forget a changeset comment!

heads up: it's "source:historic" for the tags on these nodes