I was wondering what your source was for way/332655105. I had a look on both MapBox and Bing and couldn't see any sign of a building. Bing shows cloud, and MapBox shows a clear field.

Good to see cleanups of the NHD data!

How'd you find out the sandman hotel takes bitcoin?

This seems misplaced. Does this store have a physical presence?

I was wondering, is this office really off of the parking lot at the end of Helmcken Street?

My point is that you didn't correct the error - they're both errors, spelling building wrong

Copyright and Google's terms don't let us take data from any of their products, which includes Google Street View.

Why did you change bulding=bulding to building=bulding?

Hi,

you've used Google as a source. Copyright and Google's terms don't let us take their data or use their products. (osm.org/copyright) Did you use Google as a source for any other changes?

Also, can you please use a more descriptive changeset comment than "Validation" so people can easily see what you're doing?

Hey,

I wanted to let you know that the tag to indicate a place accepts bitcoin is "payment:bitcoin", and if it's a bitcoin ATM, you should add an amenity=atm tag

It should mean that anyone using a router or geocoder using OpenStreetMap as a data source will be able to get there. Of course, it will take time for devices and apps to update their data.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I slightly changed the tagging of the POI to indicate it's a funeral directors, as well as mapped it out as a building, and added detail to the nearby Walmart

Hello,

It's claimed that this data is node to node identical to Tracksource, a copyrighted source.

What was the source of this changeset?

It looks like you've changed the link roads connecting to the motorway to secondary links. Normally these would be highway=motorway_link. You can read more at osm.wiki/Highway_link

this seems to have made some problems around relation/812190#map=18/34.25831/136.58273 where the admin geoms are separate from the coastline. It's also fairly absurd to represent the admin boundary as thousands of little islands

As the import did none of the required consultation with the imports@ mailing list or the local lists, I'm going ahead and reverting it.

Rub21, would it be better to revert this changeset?

Please use a meaningful changeset comment, not one like "#map-feedback #851" which doesn't allow someone to figure out what you were intending and why. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments has more information about writing good changeset comments.

Could you direct me to the imports list consultation about this import? I'm worried that I can't find it and the imports guidelines haven't been followed