Same deal here: way/903888461. The way crosses over itself and makes an invalid polygon.

Looks like something bad happened to way/875016206. Was this intended?

FYI, I reverted this changeset as the changes made introduced dozens of consistency errors when you moved parts of objects but left behind many nodes that were shared with other objects, creating ways that zigzagged and created invalid areas. If objects don't align with the imagery you are using, it doesn't been they are wrong. Your changeset comments gave no information about why you thought your imagery was more up to date.

In addition to deleting stuff that shouldn't be, your changeset comment of "1" is not enough for a quality change comment to inform others what you are doing. It needs to do a better job of explaining the "why" of a change.

Hello Shafter CA,

The landuse=residential tag isn't meant for single parcels, but entire neighborhoods. See landuse=residential for the following line: "The landuse tag is mostly used for larger areas and not at parcel granularity". You might want to re-edit those that you've created. At the very least, please consider not using parcel-level landuse tags in the future. Thx.

Why are you doing this? Please stop. There is nothing wrong with my edit. If you feel there is, please discuss it instead of reverting my work.

Thanks for the fix. Sorry for the misplaced accusation.

Why did way/704190233 get rotated and jumbled up?

Hi Eric, you might want to take another look at this adjustment that you made. Old Pactolus Road doesn't match sat imagery and has pulled nodes that are shared with another way (903993154) in such a way that it is no longer a valid path.

Pipes that cross over each other and do not connect (no 4 way junction physically in the pipe) should NOT share nodes between them. Please fix this.

2000 boxes is the limit, which I’m guessing you know. If someone wants to make an improvement by adding some nodes, they can’t. My change enables others to easily make improvements.

way/879100852 is an irregular shape. Can you take another look and correct it? Thanks.

A 45km dirt bridge seems rather unlikely. Can you clarify what this trail really is and adjust tags as necessary? Thanks.

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-96.50673&lat=36.25733&zoom=4&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=long_ways%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Which node should be on top?

Since you are using a tiny node on a physical object that has non-trivial width and length, maybe it would be okay to separate them a few inches. The nodes would still represent the location of the objects correctly and would keep the Q/A tools from alarming. I don't think putting them on different layers or levels would quiet the tool, but I haven't explored that in depth.

What are these spokes within the "arc reactor"? way/1083262397

There are some OSM Q/A tools that don't like it when two nodes share the same exact lat/long coordinates. One case of that was pointed out recently with node/9926139654 being one of the nodes. Is it possible to separate these two nodes by some minute distance? Thanks.

I have reverted the change and made the fix that I intended to make. Looking at it anew, there are problems that you might want to look to rectify. The farmland extends oddly to a point in the northwest corner (node/9916211431). This doesn't match satellite imagery (not to mention that nobody would want to manipulate a tractor into a tight area like that. Conversely, the wooded area looks to extend farther east and should probably be reflected as such. I don't know much about forest=wood usage, but to use it for a thin line of trees probably isn't the best use. But like I said, I'm no expert in the use of that tag.

The thing that was wrong with it that brought it to my attention was that the two eastern nodes of the way were reused by the way, such that the way had a piece that was zero width. Looks like the way was inadvertently deleted when I went to correct that error.