This got added dead-center on a driveway. Can you describe the location of this camera or provide a picture so that the location can be adjusted?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176962681

This looks like it got added in the middle of the dumpster access. Do you have a picture or can you describe the location so that the location can be refined?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176962632

Where you have tagged "name=State Highway 256" should not have a name tag and instead have noname=yes. Routes are represented using route relations, with deprecated legacy support for ref=* on member ways, but these are not street names.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176958643

Edit looks good, but I'd call it a crash, not an accident. Accident implies something unavoidable, cars don't crash without one or more dangerously negligent drivers.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176927491

This got added between the two westbound travel lanes. Can you describe or provide a photo of where the camera actually is, so that its location on the map can be improved?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176881468

Could you update source:maxspeed appropriately as well?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176865497

It's generally good practice to save your work before moving to a geographically distant location.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176806430

This camera got added in the middle of a street. In order to provide a more accurate location, can you provide a photo or description of where the camera is located?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176761138

If these are long thin ramps, then trunk_link is appropriate. I'm curious why these were changed to secondary.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176757391

I think you meant to put your changeset comments in your bio instead.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176793962

Descriptions aren't names.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176725522

This seems to have gotten added to the middle of a driveway. In order to refine the position of this camera on the map, could you describe what it's mounted on?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176720340

Pretty good stuff, though street names on sidewalks help a lot with walking directions, and I don't believe Oklahoma has any unmarked diagonal crosswalks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176683415

I wouldn't think so, because it's still not an name of the way, but even on the route route relation, that'd still not be a name.

The name tag is actually really well documented in the wiki. osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

No, incorrect, that's what noname=yes is for. The name is only the name, never the highway number.

That's a problem with the validator. References are not street names and don't go in the name tag. You can safely tell your validator of choice to ignore it if the address is right, just doesn't match the name of the street, it's a common and known shortcoming with most validators on US addresses.

It's worth including the street names on sidewalks so that walking directions call out streetnames.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176680384

This got added seemingly on a drainage culvert; what's this camera mounted on so the position can be refined?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176641820

Yeah, no worries, it's an easy fix. Sliding the errant one onto the good one (in the web editor "id") or selecting the errant node(s) first, then the good node, then select merge if you're using JOSM. In this case I saw the good one and merged the mistaken one onto the good one.

In either case, thanks for helping out OpenStreetMap!