Where is this import documented? In the future, it would help to link to documentation in the changeset comment or a tag.

Apologies, most of my comment was written before I knew this had been reverted. References not made with this knowledge may be disregarded.

Let me try this again. All you've said has failed to address that this is an import. Regardless of whether or not you believe the rules about imports are justified, you cannot import data without prior proper discussion. There is currently grounds for any user to revert your changeset. It is likely that the Data Working Group will do so. Before I address any of your concerns, I must remind you that you are already in the wrong.

I have specifically chosen not to revert this changeset because there is something you can do to fix it. I can rescind that offer at any time. I would be in the right to do so. It is merely secondary that your data isn't as high quality as it seems. This is not an attack on the dataset. I am suggesting that the way you mapped the other dataset onto OpenStreetMap is incorrect. It does not matter how insignificant the issues are, you should never knowingly introduce incorrect information into the database for any length of time. It is far easier to add new correct information than to notice and fix existing information.

For this reason I can only accept that you either get a proposal approved to import this data as is, or correct the data. Neither the amount of time this takes you nor how efficiently that time is spent is of any concern to anyone else. There is no requirement that you must add this data to OSM.

As another user has already reverted the changeset, I will not press you any further. I would certainly offer my input if you decided to start the process of properly importing the data. Know that I will raise the same concerns I have here, and just stating that you disagree with them and with other opposing comments will result in your import being rejected.

Please do not write "unknown" for names you do not know. You can leave the name blank or use fixme=*. Also, you should not classify random segments of roads as primary_link.

That is inappropriate. The rules are clear. If you aren't manually reviewing all the data then it's an import and needs to be discussed. If it's not an import, you should be adding it with a different account.

Calling the standards that have been worked on for years nonsense just because they inconvenience you is just rude. By discussing imports, they can be made higher quality. If this were discussed and I'd participated in the discussion, I could've mentioned that there seem to be issues with some of the station names. Then you could've fixed that and had no issues with this import. Instead, you've left yourself open to someone reverting your changes and potentially being blocked from editing.

Just because you believe yourself the only real contributor of this type of data does not mean that your opinion holds all the weight.

I would rather the data be fixed than reverted. I see no reason to bring this to the DWG unless you cannot/are not willing to do so. Please: make sure no stations are duplicated (it's fine not to merge with polygons just tagged with landuse); remove state names from plant names (unless they are truly part of the name); remove refs from names (add as ref=* instead); remove website tags that don't link to the official page for an individual feature; fix website tags that redirect (I saw one in the nodes I checked).

If you correct all this, it is as though this were never an import. Otherwise, I believe the data quality will be deleterious to OpenStreetMap.

You don't need to add access tags to everything. It is obvious that cars aren't allowed on paths and as there are no signs actually posted about horses, no need to add that either.

Apologies for the error. I likely misclicked when trying to select an address node.

Fixed in changeset/124960335

Definitely not.

Is it really spelled with an extra space as "West Moreland" over "Westmoreland"? way/1071778840

The footprint wasn't 100% accurate, being slightly rotated off. They didn't preserve the history, instead submitting the edit across two changesets.

This could be a consequence of mapping for OSM Streak. I have not used it but I think it may require users to add a new feature, not just improve an existing one. A shame, really, because there are still a lot of new buildings in the area that haven't been mapped yet.

It's all manual, it's just really low quality.

This user never responds to changeset comments and has already been blocked twice for it.

I drove by Linder and State today. The only physical barrier is to the south.

name=* is not for descriptions. node/6705147488 should be tagged as religion=christian and perhaps a fixme requesting the name.

Please check the case of addr:state. It should be all caps.

Check addr:state on way/444328100.

addr:state=ID?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4710892055/history

I would have to ask the same about Linder and State.

Is the road really physically divided at way/1085450147? I see a short island. It should only be represented with two ways for the length where the island is present.

Also, you should not add horse=* access to roads in Ada County. There are no signs posted anywhere because horses are not used for transportation here.