Why were the baseball pitches removed? They seem to still be on imagery. Will be reverting this changeset if no other comments are made.

undeleted in changeset #124551488

Reverted in changeset #55146607, as no explanation given for the deletion, and they still appear to be on imagery. As per service=driveway personal driveway are allowed to be mapped.

When mapping buildings, try to avoid mapping the shape of the roof as seen from the satellite's camera perspective. Remember, you're trying to map the actual footprint of the building, not just trace the imagery.

Please see this article, and try to follow its guidelines in the future: https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/tracing-rectangular-buildings/

Especially this section: https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/tracing-rectangular-buildings/#buildings-with-a-ridged-roof , as it speaks about the roof issue I bring up, but in a more clear way.

As said before, please do not delete ways and replace them, edit & move them if you believe that they are inaccurate. See: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124544712

It would be best to tag the roads in the parking lot with only highway=service [1], rather than service=driveway ``As of 2021, paths in or around a parking lot (amenity=parking) are tagged with highway=service without service=*'' [2]. See this tag as well: service=parking_aisle [3].

Also, always write your source in the source tag of the changeset. What is the source of the change from `Parkway Dr.' to `Park Way'? If its from survey, please do list that in the changeset, as people may think it is incorrect in the future without a source, as other mapping services have it wrong (they have it as `Parkway Dr.'. As I can see on PennDOT VideoLog, it is indeed `Park Way' on signage.

Please do mention a log of the actual changes made, instead of a generic ``updated roads''. Please see: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

references:
[1] highway=service
[2] service=driveway
[3] service=parking_aisle

Thank you! ^^

I didn't see the crossing=unmarked tags that you put, sorry!! Please ignore that part of my comment.

Also, btw, in future, It would probably be best to tag the crossings with footway=crossing [1], and crossing=unmarked [2], for the ones without any markings on the road.

references:
[1] footway=crossing
[2] crossing=unmarked

Please make sure the changeset comment corresponds to the actual changes made. No tags were changed in this dataset. In addition, please do not slightly move around ways without explanation.

Please make sure the changeset comment corresponds to the actual changes made. Tags were changed to make them not driveways. There was no geometry changes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124530788

Please see: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Do try to move and add onto ways, only deleting and redrawing as a last resort. It is better for keeping the history of the old way, and is just generally best practice to do so.

osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Please make sure your bounding boxes for a single edit are smaller. Thank you.

Please make sure your bounding boxes for a single edit are smaller. Thank you.

Do not delete ways based solely on imagery. It may be outdated, especially since it seems this area was just built up.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124517265

You didn't modify any geometry, only added a tag. Please make sure your logs are accurate to the changes you make. How do you know the way is private? That needs a source.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124517466

What is the source for this way? I can't see it on any imagery sources.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124518700

I didn't actually change the landuse. oops!

Please try to have a smaller bounding box when submitting changes.