*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 The Mapbox layer that is available here is I think from about 2010, and is very outdated and not aligned very well.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.

Why did you delete way/791384387?

Why did you delete this golf course? Did it close? The holes didn't go anywhere; does someone else operate it now?

Looks like they were traced from the USGS Topo map, but they no longer exist since the quarry tore them up. I have removed them.
There are still some other streams that don't seem to terminate anywhere; I wonder where the water ends up or if it just floods the quarry.
See changeset #83049200

Hi,
Thanks for adding so many solar farms in NC!
Are you sure that Bing is what you're tracing over? Most of these panels are misaligned from all imagery and are not even the correct size. In this area, Esri World Imagery is the nearest to 'truth' alignment as far as we can tell. Mapbox is also pretty good, but Bing is off by a bit and DG was always off. Check that things are lined up before added lots of things like solar panels.

Thank you,
Will

It is, actually. Please review tagging guidelines before altering random things that you are not familiar with.

Got scammed by formatting up there but hopefully it's still readable. :/

I'm also not sure that this is even TNRIS data, as the landcover I can find on their data portal is NLCD data which is created by USGS (https://data.tnris.org/collection/89b4016e-d091-46f6-bd45-8d3bc154f1fc)

> It isn't an import, I made it.
> it is derived from semi automated classification of aerial imagery ... by the organization in question which is distributed as a faster file under an open license.
You performed the processing that took it from one form to another, and then uploaded it. You did not generate/create the data yourself, TNRIS did and made it available.
Imports do not have to be automated, they can be and often are manual. OSM has guidelines (osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines) for importing data from external sources which clearly state **Community Buy-in**, **Documentation**, and **Import Review**. Just because it *is* licensed properly and *can* be imported doesn't mean it should be.

> As the features were created solely by me through geoprocessing and as **I copied them into the map myself** I do not think it qualifies as an import ...
Copying is importing if it is not your data.

As for quality. There is very little that separates these islands of landcover from the area next to them. Just from a single spot check, ways 699813571, 699812272, 699807593, and 699811350 in no way appear to be differentiated from the surrounding terrain. This data would not make it through any community quality review, had it happened.

Bottom line, large imports of data must be reviewed by the local and/or larger community, and I have serious doubts that this would have been approved.

Hi,
Did you document this import anywhere, and discuss it with the community? I can't find a page on the wiki for this TNRIS data.
If not I would suggest that this data (all of it) be removed because it is VERY low quality, inconsistent, and just generally not good.

Hi,
are you aware of the quality of building you are adding? Many of these buildings are just rectangles that approximate a more complex building. You are effectively performing an unchecked import of the Microsoft buildings database. Please adjust the building outlines to more closely match reality before uploading.

This seems like it broke a LOT of existing landuse multipolygons...

No I traced these by hand. Microsoft building imports are done in the RapiD editor and must be labeled as imports. The dataset is also not available for outside the U.S. osm.wiki/Microsoft_Building_Footprint_Data