And thanks for engaging! Definitely don't let my feedback push you away from contributing more: I've been participating in OpenStreetMap for about a year and a half, but I still make mistakes all the time and learn how to map something new several times a week! It's got a steep learning curve, but I'm sure you'll enjoy contributing.

One web-based undo tool is https://revert.monicz.dev/ if you ever need it. However, I don't think that tool handles data conflicts very well, so it might struggle in this case because I think your second changeset modified the building's way as well. I'm not sure what would happen. It might be better to simply create a new changeset to align and square up the building again.

Precise alignment of features is unfortunately something that can't ever seem to be quite perfect. Some imagery layers are misaligned, and some public building footprint data published by local governments are also on a different offset than other data in OSM. If you spot egregious examples where buildings are mapped quite far off from how they appear in Bing imagery, then you can adjust them, but I wouldn't worry too much about getting building outlines perfect once they're within a foot or two.

I hope this helps!

maxspeed:forward=* and maxspeed:backward=*, apparently! I didn't know that either until now. Basically every line (more properly called a way in OSM-lingo) has a direction in OpenStreetMap because it's an ordered series of points (a.k.a. nodes). In the web editor, you can see the direction by looking at the little triangle handles between nodes; the triangle points in the forward direction like an arrow. Anyway, in this case it looks like the northeast direction is forward, so I added maxspeed:forward="25 mph" and maxspeed:backward="20 mph" (without the quotes of course; I'm trying to make this message parse properly).

Let me know if you have any questions. Happy mapping!

Looks good to me, thanks!

Yeah, so unfortunately bus route relations are one of the most complex and annoying things to map. This is a great start though. I don't know what a "worker/driver" route is, but is it just like any other bus route? Do you have a link to the official agency page with the route map or description? That will help me flesh out the route relations to include the full route. Thanks.

Thanks!

Thanks for getting these on the map! Usually buildings are made of rectangular parts, so you can use the "square" tool to make them into right angles. In the web editor, you can press "q" with one or more buildings selected, or right click a selection and find the "square" option. Let me know if you have any questions about that.

Could also have fixed the address. I got it.

I'm far from a road classification expert in real life and in OpenStreetMap tagging, but it sounds like you're reasoning that secondary is appropriate here? So was it a mistake that you changed it FROM highway=secondary TO highway=tertiary in changeset/184550436? Or what am I misunderstanding here?

Re: the construction, what's the construction for? Is there some kind of Snohomish County project page where I can learn about the project and restrictions?

Thanks!

Parking lot entrances are not service=driveway per service=driveway#:~:text=When%20not%20to%20use

You also seem to have something going on about way/824225394. First you downgraded its classification from highway=secondary to highway=tertiary with access=no last month in changeset/184550436. Then another user undid those changes in changeset/185767080, but 12 hours later you changed part of this road again, this time using access=customers and highway=construction. *What's going on here?* Please point me to official sources about the construction here, or otherwise explain what you're trying to do.

Another mapper has changed this to a road under construction. I don't know what that's about. I'm investigating.

Thanks. It should actually be expanded even more "Ave" -> "Avenue"

Thanks. Proper phone number format in OpenStreetMap in the US has dashes separating every group with no spaces, so +1-206-624-3034 is correct, not +1 206-624-3034. I fixed this.

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thanks for the contributions! Generally this looks good, but I have a few notes:

The outline of the building should generally match the footprint of the building, not the roof. Dormers or other vertical corners on the roof geometry can cause the roof outline to appear angled in aerial imagery because aerial imagery is often a little oblique (appears to be taken from a slight angle, since the plane doesn't fly directly above every building). I think if you were to square the building again to flatten out the garage-door face of the house then it would be more accurate to the building footprint.

I think all the access tags are already implied on the driveway, because "by default" data consumers interpret a highway=service + service=driveway as access=private.

oneway=no is also implied for most road types and shouldn't be added except in very confusing complex intersections and such where you want to clarify to other mappers that it is two-way.

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I recommend joining the OSMUS Slack at https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ if you're not on there already: it's a great place to learn about community mapping events and to discuss tagging questions. Happy mapping!

What do you mean, @Glassman? node/4350176699/history/5 didn't have any address tags.

It sounds like abandoned:highway=footway would be appropriate for the far unmaintained segment. Per osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, the distinction between disused:*=* and abandoned:*=* is primarily that the latter indicates that considerable effort would need to be put into the infrastructure to put it back into use.

Then for the other tags, access=no has a pretty strong meaning and I don't get the impression that it's the case here. (aside: something I see a lot is people marking "private road" streets at access=no when the sign usually really means ownership=private unless there's also a "No Trespassing". But I believe neither access=no nor ownership=private apply here).

I definitely wouldn't rely on trail_visibility=* alone to indicate this situation, but if you know the appropriate values for each segment, go for it.

informal=yes is good if the trail isn't officially maintained by or with the permission of whoever operates this space.

Regarding the actual syntax of the disused:*=* tag, you want to append the prefix, separated with a colon (:) to the tag key. So instead of abandoned="highway=path" with "abandoned" as the tag name, it should be abandoned:highway=path. It should replace the highway=* tag entirely, i.e. there should be no highway=path tag left after applying the lifecycle prefix.

I'm not familiar enough with the highway=path tag to speak as to whether highway=path or highway=footway works better; I was under the impression that a highway=path should usually be paired with a foot=designated tag or something like that to describe the type of path, but I could be wrong. I think either abandoned:highway=footway or abandoned:highway=path would work fine.

Yes, please go ahead and split the trail at approximately the point where it becomes overgrown. And then you can leave a short comment on the note and press "comment and resolve" to mark it as completed.

Thanks as always for contributing! I think some local mappers try to send a welcome message to all the new users in Washington, but if you haven't been invited yet I encourage you to consider joining OpenStreetMap US Slack at https://slack.openstreetmap.us/. It has lots of lively discussion about all sorts of OSM topics, from community events to discussions on how to map things.

Happy mapping!

Is there a "No Trespassing sign" sign here? Otherwise access=no isn't correct.

Based on the anonymous (but presumably your) note at note/5370496, is sounds like the footpath becomes disused at a certain point? In that case, we can split the trail at that point to accurately represent the unmaintained section.

You might find osm.wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F helpful with more info as well

Thanks for the contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I look forward to discussing this trail further.

Removed because of no response. Street-level imagery indicates that this is a utility box cover.

Thanks, these look better. One note on top of these: in OpenStreetMap in the US, the consensus for phone numbers is to include the a plus with the country code and all dashes so like phone=+1-206-294-1380 instead of phone=2062941380. Do you want to make those updates or should I get them?

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thanks for the cleanup. People seem to go crazy about Flock specifically and then incorrectly map every camera as manufactured by Flock. So thanks for verifying these.

When you remove the manufacturer=* tag, you should also remove manufacturer:wikidata=* Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/) is a machine-readable knowledge base, so tags like manufacturer often come effectively in pairs, with the older manufacturer=* tag spelling out the name, and the manufacturer:wikidata=* tag providing the wikidata Q id for modern Wikidata-enhanced users of the data.

Do you want me to remove the wikidata tags for you or would you like to take care of them yourself?

--

One other note, I also noticed that sometimes you replaced surveillance:type=ALPR with surveillance:type=camera, but sometimes you removed surveillance:type=* entirely. Was that intentional (e.g. if you weren't sure what type of device it was), or are they all cameras?

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Looks good, thanks! My one note is that I don't believe the pound sign (#) belongs in the unit number. So it should be just addr:unit=202. I've updated this; let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!