@VJMK
No, the type=multipolygone was set in this changeset.

That node was deleted in the very early phase of OSM where also anonymous user could edit the database. It might be possible that those data could be deleted in version 1. You might need to ask admins for more details.

Please do not move nodes half way around the globe and create a new node instead.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181856391

leisure=resort requires an accommodation provision. I can't find any source supporting that. Please share your source.

If it wasn't a bot edit, how did you made sure that each object you changed is actually a leisure=resort? E.g. node/6782247328 doesn't look like one.

Hey GeoMasker,
any reason for removing the crossing:signals tags?
It's appreciated you work on fixing complex intersections, but please don't delete correct data from OSM.

On 13 Mile / Woodward Ave you added traffic islands on the footway. Which is in deed correct, but as a result, now the road is crossing the footway in the traffic island. That's definitely not the case. Please either split the road to get the crossing geometry straight or get revert your traffic island to match the level of detail of the road. Both level of details need to match. Otherwise the data itself is useless.

and btw. it's duplicate tagging to add crossing=unmarked to an existing crossing:markings=no

Hey,
I noticed you changed a couple of crossings in that area. Please pay attention to only add crossings, if it is actually a crossing and not just a driveway. Usually you can identify actual crossings by kerbs or something similar.
A good question to ask yourself: Does a ped need to pay any attention?

Hey PowerMapper77,
I assume the data you added with this (and the once for the other states) was an import and you haven't reviewed them one by one? If so, such imports need to follow the Import Guidelines: osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Did you started the required discussion ahead of your import? If not, I suggest to start such kind of discussion as soon as possible and stop any further imports.

I believe most of the "names" you added in name might be not actual names, but rather the operator?

Was this automated edit somewhere discussed?

Was this automated edit somewhere discussed?

Hey Mitesh, you might want to add what kind of POI exist in that location and not only its name.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178789533

Hey Jeff, if that building is an fire station, you might want to add amenity=fire_station
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178789239

Hey, is there any reason why you deleted the object and replaced it with node/13577767503 with poor positioning and less information?

Hey ratrun,
I can see you deleted a couple of ways, which were added just 2 days ago by a fellow mapper based on GPX tracks. Have you been there within the last days and can provide any more recent sources why you think those ways are not existent?

Otherwise I kindly ask you to restore those ways. Have a nice day.

Not sure what you mean by messy. They were matching to the latest HiRes aerials from Oakland County. If you spot something odd and are not interested in fixing it with the same level of detail, feel free to add notes.

For sure, I just reverted those changes to the road geometry. The rest of your clean up in the area looked good to me, so I didn't touch them.

Hey Hyposometic, please stop with your deletion and simplification of OSM data. In several changesets you replaced detailed turning cycles with simplified notes. That's not appreciated. I will revert those changesets.

osm.wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Pedestrian_Working_Group/Guide
gives a good description on sidewalks, crossings and related stuff.

Btw. the new 2025 Oakland County aerials are out, which you might want to use instead of the 2023 version. Though seems iD hasn't updated the default layers yet

Hey Trail_Caretaker,
it seems, you have joined in this change set a couple of ways, which had different tags. Especially the cycleway along Long Lake Road was split in sections to separate the sidepath from the crossing sections.

I fixed this in changeset/177200060.

You might as well join the discussion on: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sidewalk-on-cyclepath/138915/18