Hey Paul,
please be more careful when "blindly solving" issues. On current aerials it's quite obvious that you fix just shuts off the QC-tool but not fix the actual problem of the road-layout.

Either put in the effort to fix the issue properly or revert your changes, so it still shows up in QC-tools as issue.

@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?