Thanks for adding residential areas! However, it is best practice to *not* attach landuse areas to roads or sidewalks--it's not strictly accurate and makes working with those features harder in the future. See landuse=residential#Separation_from_roads Happy mapping!

We're already using place=quarter for larger "communities" of the city that group neighborhoods, so that's not a small change. And while the "place" values are pretty loosely defined it's nice to have place=neighbourhood actually be neighborhoods, especially since they're distinct in Minneapolis. Regarding Dinkytown, if I search for it on osm.org, it does take me to the locality node as expected so it is still a useful part of the data. And the districts you're talking about have fuzzy boundaries that cross neighborhoods, so I don't think they necessarily need to be "under" neighborhoods (and might be challenging to try to define by anything other than a node). I guess I'm asking, what is your goal--trying to get the name more visible on osm.org, or something else? Feel free to DM if you want.

Hi, I think this changeset may have created a bunch of name:full and name:prefix keys that have no value? See OSM Inspector https://tinyurl.com/stcn9pxf

Through OSM Inspector, I noticed that some buildings in your import have an excessive number of nodes. (For ex, way/1487828603 originally had 32 nodes, and I trimmed it down to 13) So you may want to add some data checking and/or a simplification algorithm to your process. Happy mapping!

Hi, the woods area you mapped in this changeset has some issues with self-intersection/nodes that are too close. (see warnings in changeset tags above, or the OSM Inspector https://tinyurl.com/mtnw3b6v) It'd be great if you could clean those up, and be aware of it going forward. Thanks and happy mapping!

Sure, here's a link to one example in OSM Inspector: https://tinyurl.com/4pzu96fp If you zoom out, you can see several more in the area. The OSM wiki page should be fairly clear on fixing, but one tip for iD is that if you select both an inner ring and outer ring and merge (+) them, it will automatically create a multipolygon relation.

Hi, thanks for working so much on land use! I was looking at a QA tool called OSM Inspector and noticed a number of landuse areas that have another type of landuse inside them. The correct way to handle this is to make a multipolygon relation that includes the outer and inner way, but you seem to have created a "seam" from the outside to inside. One example is the natural=wood SW of Franks Rd and Auburn Rd. Would you be able to fix those? You can find some directions on this wiki page: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon Thanks and happy mapping!

Hi, was fixing an overlapping node nearby and noticed the addresses in this apartment complex could probably use some attention if you're in the area. I fixed a typo in the complex name, but unit numbers for each entrance and/or building ref would help routing a lot.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for contributing! I noticed you doing something that is not good practice: Please don't use the tags as the name, for example naming a grassland "grass". More info on the wiki: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things
It seems unlikely that the fields are numbered in the way you have named, but if they are it would be more appropriate to put the number in the "ref" key. Remember the map data is for everyone, not just for you! :) Happy mapping!

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! I noticed in this changeset a couple of the footpaths overlap with themselves. Instead of making one giant way that traces back over itself, though, you should make multiple, connected ways. For example the one to the south of Alberta Childrens Hospital might have one long way, and then some shorter ways that connect to it in the middle. Happy mapping!

That looks good, thanks!!

I noticed the sidewalk way that's to the NE of Lynn & 124th goes to Lynn and back. Can you fix that so the way does not overlap itself? There are also a couple other cases in the area that are your recent edits--see [OSM Inspector](https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-93.36772&lat=44.76432&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=long_ways%2Cself_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points) Thanks and happy mapping!

Hi, happened upon your edits, and I noticed a couple areas where the farmland extends through forest, which seems questionable. (there is landuse=orchard if they're fruit trees) Hoping you can be more careful about this, especially in places where landuse areas are attached together, because it's really a pain to fix later. :) Thanks and happy mapping!

Hi, I happened upon your edit, which created a beach entirely within the body of water. As I read the wiki, natural=beach should be the water's edge. natural=beach Sand flats exposed at low tide would be tagged differently. (Since this is a reservoir, I'm not sure if tides are even relevant!) Assuming you might know the area, hopefully you can adjust this accurately. Thanks and happy mapping!

There are a couple issues with your changeset. One is that you have tagged an area as grass that from imagery appears to mostly be orchard. Also, the XC course you mapped is self-overlapping (ie repeats some parts of the route), and it's not clear how much of it is actually paths, or just running through the orchard. Ideally in a case like this you'd want to map the paths, then make a route that joins paths together in a particular order. (see route=running) Happy mapping!

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. When creating linear features like paths, please don't "retrace your steps". Instead, create new paths that attach to each other. Happy mapping!

Including MnDOT page for project: https://dot.mn.gov/metro/projects/johnirelandbridge/index.html

Oops, meant this link to go in changeset comment: https://ir.corecivic.com/news-releases/news-release-details/corecivic-enters-definitive-agreement-acquire-farmville

Hi, I forget exactly what the issue was (I think self-intersection?), but it was flagged on OSM Inspector. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-93.12179&lat=41.85282&zoom=7&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=self_intersection_ways

Hi, do you have a reference for these golf holes? I don't see anything in imagery, they're not within a golf course area, etc. If they are planned for the future, there are tags you could use to reflect that, such as the proposed: prefix. proposed=* Thanks