Hi there, thank you for creating a polygon for Coney Island, but I think we _also_ need to have it as a node for labeling purposes. See for example Bath Beach and Gravesend, which each have both. You can also combine the node and the boundary together in a relation, like most of the Manhattan neighborhoods have: relation/8398117

Hi there, I see you added a node for Koreatown, but there already existed a node at node/150968103 with a much longer history. Maybe you could reuse that node instead? Also I haven't looked at the other neighborhood relations you added in this changeset, but you might want to check to see if any of those have duplicated nodes, too.

Hi there, should this relation for "Sto:lo Nation" relation/8512693 be combined with "Stó:lō Tribal Council" relation/8514116? It seems like they share some of the same parcels, but there are a lot of parcels that only exist in one or the other relation. Is this intentional?

Should this relation for Sto:lo Nation be the same as "Stó:lō Tribal Council" relation/8514116? It looks like they share some parcels, but a lot of other parcels only exist in one or the other relation. Is this intentional?

Hello Arctic Gnome, should this relation for Stó:lō Tribal Council be combined with the other partly-overlapping relation for "Sto:lo Nation" relation/8512693?

👍

💅

This changeset incorrectly added a `dam` tag to a feature that should be `waterway=riverbank`

Is "Belbay" some kind of railroad marker? It's not a locality name that I'm familiar with at all, as a long-time Bellingham resident.

Is this an official protected area? Or is it just the area where these people live? The Wikipedia page doesn't say it's protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayuu_people

Is start_date=0000 appropriate for these waterways? If that means "unknown" shouldn't we just remove the tag?

👍

Hello Robert,
I see you've been mapping clearcuts as `landuse=farmland` + `crop=timber`, and then later as `landuse=industrial` + `industrial=forest`. As far as I know, neither of these are standard tagging practices. The use of `landuse=industrial` in particular causes undesireable effects on the OSM renderer, showing up as either gray or pink depending on the zoom level. Have you considered trying `natural=scrub` + `man_made=clearcut` instead? That's probably what I'd do in these situations. See also: man_made=clearcut

I mean "wrong" changeset message.

Sorry, wrote changeset message. This was just adding a single EV charging station, based on a survey.

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap! Welcome!

If this is a three-story building, you could also add building:levels=3.

Hi George, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I can't tell what you were trying to accomplish, since you didn't leave a very informative changeset message. It looks like you created an untagged line, so I went ahead and deleted that for you.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding this detail. Looks like we are also missing the `amenity=bank` tag which would help this show up as a bank on the map. I'll add that.

Hello Dani, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thanks for adding that hotel node. I see that the hotel already exists as a building in OSM, but the building is missing the `amenity=hotel` tag, so that's probably why it didn't show up on MAPS.ME. I will combine your node with the existing building.

Thanks again!

Looks good! When buildings physically abut each other, they can share nodes along that shared wall, if necessary. In this case, it looks like you mapped it correctly with a small gap between the buildings (as visible on satellite). But I suspect some of the buildings on the Fox lot will have walls that are flush against each other. We'll see.