Hi devemporer! I noticed in this changeset you made a lot of major changes to road classifications, some that looked fine and some that looked questionable. Since it would be very labor-intensive to study your changeset to check which parts are worth keeping and leave some things broken in the meantime, I've reverted your changeset for now with changeset/187448577. I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to discuss your intent and reasoning with the changes you made so we can decide which changes to keep. Feel free to reach out either by replying in this changeset discussion or by sending me a message. Thank you!

Hello Geofs User, thanks for your contributions to OSM! I just wanted to let you know that "Updated based on the right info" is a bit confusing for a changeset comment. The changeset comment should describe what you changed, and ideally you should also document how you know the information you added is accurate in the source tag (if it's something you know from familiarity, that's usually recorded as "local knowledge", and if you went out of your way to specifically check the information in person, that would be "survey"). If you have any questions, feel free to let me know either in a reply here or by sending me a message. You can also see more details on how to write good changeset comments on the OpenStreetMap wiki here: <osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments>. Thank you!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186657688

Hi there, just wanted to let you know that I made a little change to the object you added here in my changeset/185448707. The direction tag is for expressing the direction that a feature is facing. Using a range there is for features that may move (i.e., there is not a single direction that they are always facing), but this doesn't apply to a Flock ALPR camera. I'm assuming that your intent was to make a field of view cone for the DeFlock map, so I just changed the direction value to the midpoint of the two values you had there before. If that's not correct, just let me know, or of course feel free to fix it yourself. Thanks for your contributions, and have a good day 😊

Hi Blue2019! Thank you for adding the direction here, but this edit also removed several existing tags from the node. I fixed this in changeset/177909983, but please try to be more careful in the future. Thanks!

No worries, I know how that goes. Big part of why my OSM and Wikipedia contributions end up being sporadic as well. Would you like to collaborate on mapping these out? This is getting a little out of scope of the changeset discussion but feel free to send me a message if so. I believe we've got at least a couple of other people adding these locally too (though I haven't tried to reach out yet), so it'd be nice to get us all on the same page.

I also noticed that you tagged the drainage ditch as waterway=stream, which is not the appropriate tag for this kind of feature. Since it was a pretty straightforward fix, I went ahead and corrected it in changeset/175934192, but for future reference, the correct tag is waterway=drain or waterway=ditch. You can consult the wiki for more information on the specific meanings of these tags:
- waterway=stream
- waterway=drain
- waterway=ditch
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175903506

Hello Bobby3! Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. I noticed that this edit has a changeset comment that does not adequately describe the changes you made. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to OpenStreetMap, and every edit should be explained by a clear changeset comment. Please use the changeset comment to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Changeset comments save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate changeset comment may be quite brief. You can read more about why good changeset comments are important and how to write good changeset comments on the OpenStreetMap Wiki at <osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments>. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175903506

For the record: since I was at Baptist today I went ahead and adjusted the positions and directions of the Flock cameras in changeset #175736164, so no need to worry about that anymore.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174487616

Hi AdrenoBear! Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your contributions so far. I did notice that the Flock camera node you added in this changeset is a bit strangely placed in the middle of the street. Don't worry, though, this is not complicated to fix. If you're comfortable giving the in-browser OpenStreetMap editor on OSM.org, iD, a try, you can fix it by just dragging the node over to where it's supposed to be. (You can read about iD on the OpenStreetMap Wiki at <osm.wiki/iD>.) If not, we could at least get it out of the middle of the road and refine it later if you can describe where the camera is (e.g., is it on the west side or the east side of the road?), and worst case, I am a Beaumont local and I'll be down to Baptist eventually to pick up some prescriptions, so I can try to remember to pin down a better location then.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174487616

That would be my typo 😆 Good catch, thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173792705

Hi Rovastar! Thanks for this contribution. The edits in this changeset are fine, but "x" is not an acceptable changeset comment. As a courtesy to other editors, your changeset comment should describe what you did. You can read more on how to write good changeset comments and why they're important on the wiki at <osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments>.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173585029

Hi dannmer, thanks for contributing to OSM in Beaumont. I can't find this address corroborated in the City of Beaumont's GIS map nor in the Jefferson Central Appraisal District's record for this property (neither list an address here). Do you have another source of information besides the NAD that makes you confident that it's correct?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171273328

Just happened upon this changeset and some of your other ones adding amenity=prison_camp areas when I was looking at prison-related tagging recently. I'm a bit concerned with the sourcing (Epoch Times is considered a deprecated source by the English Wikipedia, for instance, as "most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact" [1]), but there's clearly at least *something* at these outlined sites. I just feel like this tagging suggests an unwarranted level of certainty about what these places actually are.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EPOCHTIMES

Just realized I didn't change the first source URL from the previous changeset. Should actually be https://beaumontzip.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2-Parkdale-PTRS-4.15.24.pdf.

Forgive me if this is because I'm only looking at the Bing imagery, but is there a reason you're sure the *entire* woods area is appropriate to retag as grass?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166879129

Discussion on this automated edit proposal is now ongoing at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/steak-n-shake-bitcoin-tags/130380

For documentation's sake: I reverted this changeset in changeset #166546258, and discussion on this automated edit proposal is now taking place at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/steak-n-shake-bitcoin-tags/130380

Hi Comino, thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. I noticed that this changeset is missing a source=* tag, which makes it difficult for other mappers to easily determine the reliability of the information you're using to make edits. In the future, please be sure to use the source=* tag to document where you got your information. You can find more details about the source=* tag here: source=*.

Additionally, you seem to be part of the BTC Map organized editing project; please add the #btcmap hashtag to the changeset comment of all changesets you submit for this project, in accordance with the Organized Editing Guidelines <https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines#Edits_to_the_map> and BTC Map's contributor instructions <https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#changeset-comments>.

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out and I'll do my best to help.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166495297

Also, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you in particular! I just decided to start keeping an eye on the BTC Map edits and you've been the most active recently. Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for being understanding!

"In this case, the source tag 'local knowledge' means that I have extrapolated information from several sources, including that of the business owner, so I can confirm that the place exists in reality even if I haven't been there physically."

The issue is that this is not what "local knowledge" means. I encourage you to consult the OpenStreetMap wiki page addressing common values of the source tag, including "local knowledge": source=*#General_sources_commonly_used_by_human_mappers. In short, unless you have seen the feature you're mapping in person, it's not appropriate to use "local knowledge" as your source. A combination of indirect sources of information can indeed create reasonable certainty that the feature exists and that the information you're adding about it is accurate, but it's important to accurately document where exactly you got the information nonetheless.