Hey b-jazz,
I couldn't find me in the PeWU history of the streams, so I think what happened is that I moved the coastline and a stream wasn't downloaded.
Thanks for the fix, it looks good now. Another mapper removed a couple of them.
Will

It appears to be from May 29 2020, according to https://discover.digitalglobe.com, though that may not be the exact date the image was taken.

huge bounding box is because I touched the Intracoastal Waterway I guess?

Hi,
please use descriptive changeset comments! It helps other mappers understand what you did at a glance. An empty comment does little to explain this changeset spanning the whole east coast.

Hi,
What is the source for these changes?

Since you haven't responded and I cannot find any evidence of existing secondary-like road here, I've downgraded that segment to track and changed most of the rest of this 'turnpike' to tertiary.
I kept the turnpike name in the `old_name` tag to be more accurate.

It seems that this turnpike is only historical, and does not really exist anymore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_turnpikes_in_Virginia_and_West_Virginia). I'm interested to know where you're getting this data since it's not on the USGS maps.

All good, I saw La Salle first and got confused.

Hi,
please check your changeset comments before submitting; this is no longer Peru unless I'm mistaken.

Lots of deletion presumably because people are moving into the towns.

Hi,
Why did you expand this residential area (way/676443710) to cover commercial buildings instead of the apartment complex it is intended for?
Thanks

*ADDING WATER

*Incorrect changeset description, should be "update new residential construction" or something.

*Also some NHD cleanup.

If these are reviewed, why is a driveway tagged as tertiary? (way/740869665)

There is no "exact imagery" anywhere, but some layers are more accurate than others. The Mapbox layer that is available here is I think from about 2010, and is very outdated and not aligned very well. Esri (not Clarity) is generally the most reliable as they seem to orthorectify everywhere to some extent.

Using older imagery causes problems when things are built or destroyed and it's not obvious which is correct.

When there's an obvious difference in the alignment between an imagery layer and another or the data, all editors (can't speak for GoMap) have an 'Imagery Alignment' feature for lining them up, so even inaccurate layers can be traced on once they're aligned.

Please be more careful when you are just using the iD resolve tool to fix issues.

For example, ways 765283811 and 765283813 should not exist, there is not a bridge there. The proper way to solve the crossing ways issue there is to create a culvert section of the waterway.

Please be more careful when you are editing. I'm not sure how but you managed to leave a bunch of parking aisles disconnected from the rest of the map, and whatever imagery you traced on was offset from everything else.

Hi,
Why have you tagged the Raleigh and Grayson Tpk, which looks like a dirt track at best, as secondary? TIGER also thinks it's called "Walker Mountain Rd"

Hi,
What imagery are you aligning to here?
The buildings are off by almost 10m in some places and aren't aligned to any of the default imagery layers, definitely not Bing.

Hi,
Why did you add these turn restrictions? It's perfectly possible for someone to make those turns. Anyone at 1713 Cole Mill has to get in and out of their drive somehow.