Credit really goes to GoColeGo. I just made a minor edit.

Hi Raistlfiren, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. It looks like your GPX file had some anomalies in it that led to some nodes being far away from their actual location. Maybe your GPS was on the fritz that day?

You should also note that the Lower Trails way shouldn't double back on itself when mapping because it isn't topologically correct. There isn't a separate path, it is just reusing the same path, therefore you should only draw the trail once in that area.

Let me know if you want help in fixing either of these problems.

See highway=construction for what I think might be the appropriate tag. If there is zero visible work being done yet, look at the proposed key (proposed=*) instead.

You might want to read the page osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer as well.

These are just my thoughts. Feel free to discuss further. There is also the tagging mailing list or the #tagging channel on Slack if you want to chat with others that have more knowledge than I on the topic.

Hello gadoidé and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see that you have made a bunch of changes in the area, but you have described the set of changes as simply "Hawaii". Can you be a little more descriptive in the future so others looking at your change can understand the intent. For example I found way/865152118 was created, but I can't tell if it was part of the house/building, or a path around the building. We shouldn't have paths drawn out with no information about the purpose of them. If you need any guidance, please let me know.

Hi Jón, can you elaborate on what you mean by "(gone)"? Have the trails been bulldozed over and no longer exist, or are they still there but closed to the public? There are more appropriate tags to use than changing the name to append "gone". (If they truly no longer exist, let me know and I'll help you discover the correct tags. Thanks.)

It looks like way/878064961 was listed as a "building" but it seems like it might have been meant to be something else. Would you like to have a look?

Oops. Got sloppy and reused previous changeset description. Ignore this. There are no hydrants to see out here.

Hello Long_496,

I needed to revert this change because it moved a couple of nodes that were part of roads and that moved made the roads be out of whack. Let me know if you need help replacing your changes.

My robot didn't *modify* anything about the street address. Could you modify your notification robot to make sure the person that last edited the object that happens to have a problem with the address format is only notified if they are modifying the address? Thanks.

Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation and tagging fix @jhmeniscus. It made me remember days of playing Nerf football in our cul-de-sac when I was a kid. We would have loved to have had a real grid laid out.

Hi there baradam, I came across several features that you've mapped that are similar in style to relation/5587666 where you make use of other ways, or parts of other ways in order to define a multipolygon relation to make up a different feature. I reached out to the OSM community on Slack and they all seem to agree that it would be better if those relation polygons were instead a separate way, leaving the other ways to be whatever they are supposed to me.

Would you have any objection to me making those changes when I come across it, or do you have some strong feelings or arguments to keeping the style that you've mapped with?

Thanks.

Thanks wwhide for fixing up the paths. I've changed the building=yes to be building=roof to indicate there are no walls. Does that sound good to you?

Cool. I kind of thought that might have been the case. Thanks.

Hi QuintB, can you tell me what this way is supposed to be? way/844353376

It doesn't have any tags.

>Apparently, @b-jazz seems to understand why I have reverted your changesets. Well, maybe because @b-jazz is more experienced than you are? Or, maybe because @b-jazz thinks before he/she acts?

@GITNE, please don't take my discussion for what I think is likely a better way to handle mapping of addresses as condoning your abusive behaviour towards another mapper. I don't.

If there is a community standard of how to map "correctly", I have yet to be shown the discussion and buy-off and publication of it. And if anyone ever inadvertently goes astray of those published guidelines, I'd hope that you do a better job of educating them in the future and fostering an environment of cooperation and community.

That’s unfortunate and that tone is uncalled for. I’m sorry to see that you were on the receiving end of it.

I do like the style of putting addresses of multi-unit structures on entrance nodes instead of a separate nodes in the middle of the building. If 99.9% of the mapping isn’t done in that style, it doesn’t mean that the style isn’t the desired one going forward, so I wouldn’t use that excuse personally since you’ve got to start somewhere. I’d also like to see where this was discussed and agreed on with the community. The claim of it having to do with the “OSM data model” Doesn’t make any sense to me.

@GITNE, can you provide a link to your original interaction with @tguen where you had a civil conversation? Apparently I’m entering in the middle of the conversation and it has taken a very wrong turn and isn’t what the community wants to see in how we interact with each other. Thanks.

Hey there rivermont,
Can you take a look at my diff (changeset/89883891#map=16/33.9102/-78.3776) which untangles some crazy waterways. I'm not sure what it is supposed to look like, but your recent fix did something weird. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, so I took a wild stab at it. Maybe you could provide additional insight. Thanks.

I'm not sure where the taxiway is supposed to end on the following way: way/326479982, but as it is, it is looking a little odd at the NE corner.

Hello Scrapper81, can you take another look at way/454773823? It seems to have been accidentally shifted while other elements were shifted and it doesn't look correct. Thanks.