Hi estepme,
there are several issues with your edits:

1) All the building (and other features) outlines are inaccurate. If You switch satellite imagery to 'ESRI world imagery clarity', you will be able to draw more precise shapes. You can also use squaring function to make them all angles 90˚

2) You created additional points with names for each building. Information from the points should go directly on the area and points should be removed.

3) You are misusing `landuse=commercial' and 'leisure=park' for features that have their own set of tags e.g. leisure=pitch for sport.

4) You put `intermittent=yes` on Mount Tom Pond, which would indicate that it is seasonally dry. That seem very unlikely.

Hi,
Good work on adding all the buildings. But please don't delete existing driveways. Those are valid data.

Also what I noticed, when you are converting node into area feature, please transfer all the tags to the new object, not only the name.

thanks

Hi, did you want to do `man_made=bridge` instead of `building=yes`?

Hi Boda,
for this import we decided to keep the addresses as separate nodes.

Hi,
just a tip for those walls. You can map them as a simple way with combination tags barrier=wall + wall = dry_stone

wall=dry_stone

Hi,
just noticed that something happened with the Still River
way/43413174

and also this building
way/851268973

Hi Richū,
thanks for contributing. Just a few comments on what I saw in your edits.

although, was:* prefix is somewhat used. Current preference seems to be more specific set of prefixes e.g. disused:*
disused=*:
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

If the bridge is gone then we usually delete the feature as rule is to map the existing objects. But you can map the supporting structures that are still there with bridge:support=*
bridge:support=*

waterway=* tag is more meant for ships navigation on water rather than airplanes. I would keep the aeroway=runway tag and add surface=water. or change it to something like aeroway=water_runway

Thank for clarification. If it is really blocked off, might be worth to add nodes on both ends with barrier=chain.

Hi,
from the imagery it looks like that the passage is wide enough for cars. Path/footway are reserved for ways that are too narrow for vehicles to pass, this looks like a highway=track.
If it is only about access rights then you can add motor_vehicle=no.

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

I thought you would appreciate to know that the position and the shape of your
Troll House from 2012 was finally fixed. :D

All looks good.
Good job!

OSM keeps information about any existing verifiable feature and therefore we leave such data in the database. When a road or a path has restricted access, the proper way is to apply access=private tag that marks is as such and tells route planners to avoid those. OSM also renders them less visibly. Generally it is the task of the owner to properly label and explain to visitor where is permitted to go and enforce such rules. The duty of visitors are to follow such rules and not what navigation app tells them.
OSM didn't give any instructions to the person who introduced the data as this is provided independently by volunteers. There also don't seem to be proof that is was obtained by trespassing.
You can also think of it as that such information could be helpful during emergencies and wild fires.
I have also contacted DWG to make a contact with you.