Thanks for the update on that and placing the razed tag on it since imagery hasn't caught up to it yet. Looks good.

thats right, I just updated it to add that section

Hi AKittyCat,
Thanks for your edits, the node you have added for the parking garage is already represented as a building here: way/330244668 so a node is not needed since its already represented as this building. I removed the node since it duplicates information already on the map that is best represented as the existing parking garage building area.

Hi AKittyCat, thanks for your edits. I noticed some issues with this changeset. You may have inadvertently dragged the node for this bar and connected it to a highway: node/2625350848 I have fixed this one for you. But mainly the issue is with deleting and remaking the building for the Egg here: way/1296514152 deleting it removes all the change history associated with it when you could have moved it instead. Regardless, I think the previous version was a bit more accurate in terms of location and structure shape as it had more nodes for the curves, accounted for the parallax in the aerial imagery, and used the NY state orthos for more positional accuracy than Bing. Currently the new building you made represents the building at an angle in the imagery and is not actually where it sits on the ground. Also you removed the relation to the pedestrian area. Please be more careful in future edits if you can or leave questions about things on notes if you are not sure about something. I have not fixed this issue as its complicated to do so.

Hi AKittyCat,
Thanks for your updates. I think you may have inadvertently dragged this node: node/10613573203 of the service road to an incorrect location, I have fixed it for you. Make sure to be on the look out for accidental changes you may have made.

Hi AKittyCat,
Thanks for updating the map. I noticed you may have inadvertently added a building tag to the school area here, since the entire area for the school grounds is not a building, I went ahead and removed it.

got it ok makes sense, thanks!

Thanks MxxCon, no problem, I just made the update. I was under the impression the relation meant the outer area had 1 level and the inner area had 25 levels which would fully account for the tower levels. Sounds good.

Thank you MxxCon for fixing that! I forgot to transfer that tag over. Thanks again.

Hi Mateusz Konieczny! Yes certainly I think that change would be great. The poi may not be there anymore though but the change would be fine regardless, feel free to edit.

Hi pabi12,
It looks like your changes here removed the building=yes tag from the area here, since this is a building the building tag should be kept. I have fixed this case for you but please be more careful in future edits as I also see this issue on other features in the surrounding area.

Ok great sounds good!

Hi OneC! Ok I agree with your assessment that based on the access tag schema it can go in either direction with: 1) access=no and then specify each mode access; or 2) access=yes and then specify each mode access; and then lastly: 3) remove the general access tag entirely and just keep each mode access tag. I would say I am partial to option 3 here since its in line with how most roads of this class and access type are tagged currently and this keeps things consistent - for example any normal piece of limited access highway that does not allow pedestrians in the US - I787 for example here: way/25286557. Would something like option 3 work for you?

On alerts, no I dont have any alerts set up for this area although there is a way to do so using a third party, I normally just use the history tab in the area to check out new things in the area from time to time since I am very familiar with this area.

Hello OneC! Thanks for your edits. Wanted to check on your thoughts about the use of the general access tag here. On the wiki for the access tag here: access=* it says "Use the access=* key to describe a general access restriction that applies to all transport modes." and access=no would mean these roads in general for all modes have no public access except where specific modes have been designated, which looks like these roads have the correct mode designations set already e.g. foot=no. But it also says here: "If only specific transport modes are forbidden, for example, at a vehicle no-entry sign, use a more specific restriction like vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no over the general key access." Since foot=no is properly labeled on these roads and restricts pedestrian usage of the roadways here, would it be best to follow the general schema here and remove the general "access=no" tag? the existing foot=no tag does the job of restricting pedestrians. It would also bring these roads in line with tagging of traditional limited access roadways like I787 here etc. Open to ideas on it.

Hi DUGA, thanks for catching the issue of the flow direction! I was using Potlatch 2 back then when this was done and flow direction wasnt as intuitive as it now is as displayed on the ID UI, so yes as of ID use, the flow direction should more be accurate in my changesets on water flow. Thanks again.

No worries at all! I have the same issue with ambiguous recreation land like these, I dont really have a preference in this case so I am happy to leave them as they are but feel free to change them as needed. Perhaps a extra tag for owner/operator if known or description would be helpful on these to add an extra piece of information for future mappers.

Hi ElliottPlack! thanks for the comment, agreed if they are designated as open space they should be marked as a park, I updated the tags just now in changeset changeset/130137750. I think at the time I was reviewing the City of Baltimore parks and rec open data and these areas had no official designation in the data but I agree with your assessment. Thanks again.

Hi BigBlueParadox!
For the abandoned pois/buildings you are updating are they really abandoned or just disused? The difference between them are described here: disused:*=* I think the syntax has also changed for abandoned and disused tags to be this now: disused:*=* for example: disused:shop=yes or abandoned:shop=yes

Hi pabi12,
It looks like your change here has removed the building=yes tag from the building here, since this is still a building that tag should not be removed. I have gone ahead and fixed this case for you but I have noticed in your other edits in the past you have made the same type of edit and removed the existing building tags from structures. Please be more careful in future edits to not remove tags that are still relevant to the feature you are editing.

Hi pabi12,
This is another case where it looks like your edit to this building actually removed the building=yes tag from the building, but the feature is also a building so the building=yes tag should stay as is. I have fixed this case for you here but please be more careful in future edits to not remove existing tags to features if they are still relevant for the feature.