This crossing looks suspicious. There's no pedestrian infrastructure on either side of the road here. Are you sure it's a crossing and not lines on the road for some other purpose?

Hi, when you're adding `crossing:signals=no` have you actually surveyed these crossings and confirmed the absence of signals?

I would be very surprised if some of these (e.g., node/49789172/history/6) are actually uncontrolled crossing. In general, I don't think it's safe to assume that something tagged as `crossing=marked` can be safely "upgraded" to `crossing=uncontrolled` with `crossing:signals` because it's quite likely the original mapper did not intended assert nonexistence of signals when tagging the crossing as marked.

Hi, I noticed you changed some crossings from `traffic_signals` to `marked` such as this one node/9115594595

I'm familiar with these crossing and know they do have signals. If you want to add specific `crossing:markings` tags you can do that even from crossing tagged as `traffic_signals`. You probably shouldn't remove the traffic signal tag if it already exists unless you know that it's wrong

Thanks! Great work mapping the bike routes. There's been a lot of improvements to the network recently, so it's good to get it on the map.

Hi, I commented on one of your earlier changesets but wanted to bring this up again. You've been adding `bicycle=use_sidepath` to a lot of roads. According to the wiki, that only be used when there is "compulsory cycleway," which to my knowledge does not exist in DC.

I plan on removing this tag in a few days.

Since you've updated this place, I wonder if you might be able to confirm if it actually exists? It looks a lot like it was originally created years ago as SEO spam, so I'd be surprised if there really is a locksmith at this building

Is adding `bicycle=use_sidepath` correct here? IIRC, it's should only be used when cycling on the road is not permitted, but I don't think that's the case for any of DC's cycletracks

Related to your other changeset I commented on, is this an actual signed regulation, or your opinion on how best to use the road? If the former, you should use `bicycle=use_sidepath`. Otherwise you'll need to remove this tagging entirely.

Hi, what source do you have for this change? Last time I was here MD 193 was explicitly signed with "Bicycles May Use Full Lane".

Running a test make it fake.

This changeset has replaced some more specific building values (`building=house`, `building=apartments`) with the generic `building=yes`.

I noticed that you've missed some conflation with non-building ways in your recent import. Might want to check the rest of your data for similar

* Already mapped as a bridge way/1183440471 (This one also has a suspicious value for `height`)
* Already mapped as playground structures way/1183444290 and way/1183444291

Stop.

Assuming that you either are the user jojodah or are working with this user, you should already be aware that the edit you have made is unacceptable. I have reverted it.

Hello, I see that you've added some small areas tagged with `lesiure=park`. These areas around university buildings aren't typically considered parks, so it would be better tag them as `landuse=grass` (if they are grassy).

`landuse=commercial` on the USDA fields feels wrong. Is it generally the case that agricultural facilities are considered commercial landuse in OSM?

I may be making a hasty judgement because of the less pleasant rendering, but the tag does seems semantically wrong.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your edits.

I noticed a few mistakes in this changeset. You've accidentally set `landuse="path=highway"` here way/1099458638 and `addr:street ="junction=circular"` here way/1099458639 .

In both cases you also added a `name` to the feature. The `name` tag in OpenStreetMap should typically not be descriptive. That the path is a path is already encoded by `highway=path`, so adding `name=path` is not needed. See this wiki page for more information: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Hi, this address is definitely not 3212 Sherman Ave. NW. Assuming this isn't purely spam, can you move this business to the correct address?

Looking at you're cited source (DC imagery) and from personal experience, some of paths you deleted definitely do exist.

I don't know off hand if these are official maintained park trails. Assuming they're not (and that this is why you removed them), they still should not be unilaterally deleted when they do exist on the ground.

Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your detailed contributions around Fort Totten metro station.

As part of you contribution, you've added a number of bus shelters tagged with "name=Bus Shelter". The "name" tag in OpenStreetMap is not intended to be used in this descriptive manner. That these objects are bus shelters is already adequately captured by the tagging "amentiy=shelter" and "shelter_type=public_transport". You should ideally go back and remove the "name" tag from the objects.