Please use a more descriptive changeset message: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments This one could say something like, "Deleted a redundant traffic light". However I notice that the traffic light you did map is incorrectly placed. Please read the article on traffic signals to learn how they should be placed.

Thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. This change adds duplicate information: highway=traffic_signals is already tagged at the stop positions, which is accepted practice: highway=traffic%20signals?uselang=en#Tag_all_incoming_ways In OpenStreetMap, we are careful to not tag things twice: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

This changeset adds a building that duplicates hotel information in the node you previously added. osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element If you've already drawn the building and added a node, you can combine the information by selecting both and pressing "C" to combine.

This change removes the "building" tag from this feature. I've restored it, but please be careful to not remove features that exist. Also see this page phone=* for how phone numbers should be formatted.

Reverted changeset/115023031

Please see this guide for some ideas on how to write a proper changeset description: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments Additionally, you might find this document useful to understand how OpenStreetMap operates as a community: osm.wiki/How_We_Map

Do not reuse nodes from unrelated objects.

Thanks for your contributions. Some notes. First of all, please use a descriptive changeset comment. See here for more information: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments . Second, the "name" tag should only contain the actual name of a feature. See here for more information: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things Things like the species of a tree would better go under "species" (species=*), and the tag number under "ref" (ref=*). If you really can't find a good tag to describe an object, you can use "description".

These roads don't exist in Bing imagery, which I believe to be up to date.

These roads intersect building geometry. Please double check that the building and roads actually exist as you drew them, using a more recent imagery source, like Maxar or Bing.

Also, again, DO NOT re-use OSM objects for unrelated features. A construction site can't move two blocks over and become and orchard, they are separate things.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113872314

Thanks for your contributions. When you make a change, please be sure to include a descriptive comment so that other mappers can know at a glance what changed. Read here for more information: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Are you sure about this address change? This office is not near South First Street. Also, "addr:street" is supposed to exactly match the name of the street in OSM, with no abbreviations.

Please don't reuse ways for unrelated objects.

Swamps don't just move 1000 feet over. Please delete bad data instead of making it worse.

Why did you even remove nodes from the circle, especially without re-circularizing? Also, "fix" is not an appropriate changeset message. See here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

When we arranged the import, we knew that the buildings were slightly misaligned from Bing. However, we knew that Bing was likely to be the one offset. Plus, the misalignment was very slight, so we considered the city data authoritative. It's possible that the city data is also offset, but I warn against changing it, only because it would result in inconsistent alignment with the rest of the city. Aligning everything to Bing would mean reviewing and offsetting every building in the city.

The address does show up in the city's address database (https://gis.sanjoseca.gov/maps/publicgisviewer/?view=desktop).

This changeset also moves the building to be misaligned from all of the surrounding buildings.

If 2922 Saint Florian Way isn't here, then where is it? This seems like potentially useful information that could be fixed rather than just removed.