It can also be helpful for searching and editors working with old data to keep the old business information under a "disused" prefix: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contribution! Unfortunately I'm going to revert the deletions in this changeset. Even if a business is closed (which you should verify first), the address still exists, and shouldn't be deleted.

That is a better question for "SIM" or its users, since OSM should not be the only way to re-create a course. There is JOSM for offline OSM editing, and QGIS for general map making, but I'm sure there's better suited solutions.

I repeat, do not add features that do not exist, and do use more descriptive changeset messages. Failure to ignore these messages may result in a ban.

Hi. Please use the changeset description field to describe what you changed and why; "updated" is not sufficient. Read more here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments OpenStreetMap is a map for everyone, and has a policy against mapping nonexistent features. Please do not map historical features. See: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features If you know the dates that something existed, you can instead add it to OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for contributing! The "name" field on a building should only be used if the building itself has a formal name that people know it as. Houses don't need them. Also, you can change the attributes of a feature by clicking on it—you don't need to add a duplicate feature on top.

USPS says the zip code was correct already (and they're the authority): https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm?byaddress

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for contributing! The extra information is appreciated. My only bit of feedback would actually be the change message—this field is your chance to summarize to other mappers what you changed and why. Something like, "Added address and payment methods to an ice cream shop from local knowledge."

Why did you undo this one? natural=sand makes more sense than landuse=sand

Please be more specific about what you changed in each changeset. Read this page osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments if you have any questions.

Thanks for contributing to OSM! It would be helpful if your changeset description were more specific about what you changed and why. For example, "Added an apartment office, referencing the property management website." See more info here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi, please see the comment on your previous changeset at changeset/144810285 . The SJSU relation is only for the main campus, not satellite campuses or off-campus facilities.

wikidata=* is to say that the tagged object is exactly the same as the object on Wikidata. I don't think it's possible for an initiative to exist physically, and I also don't think this traffic sign is where they headquarter. However, the sign does have Solar America Cities branding on it, even though Solar America Cities is not commercial. brand:wikidata was correct.

You can read about building parts here: osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings They're used for representing buildings in 3D, do require both the building part and outline to be mapped, and sometimes don't directly correspond to physical building components.

Hi, Please use the changeset description to describe what you changed and why. Find more guidance here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi, individual trees should only be mapped with natural=tree on nodes, not natural=wood areas. The latter is only for forests.

Hello! Please only add objects that currently exist to OpenStreetMap. Read more about the policy here: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features Efforts to map historical features are greatly appreciated by the OpenHistoricalMap project however! https://www.openhistoricalmap.org

Do not change tags just so that an object renders or looks a certain way. OSM needs to be able to provide reliable data for everybody, not just the map on osm.org. osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Yes, information from on the ground is always preferred, I just thought I'd point it out since you were referencing the tax assessor so often.

To be clear, the tax assessor isn't an authoritative source on street names. That would be the org which named them, which would be the city's department of transportation.