Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Can you clarify a few things about your edit for me? You've added this apartment where there is already an apartment building by a different name mapped. Is there a separate apartment operating here alongside the previously mapped one?

The name of the apartment also seems like it may be referencing some individual's apartment home. It is generally not acceptable to add this sort of personal information to OpenStreetMap.

Based on these observations, I intend to delete the apartment node you added. Let me know if I am mistaken about anything.

east*

I notice there's another "Rosetree Court" just a bit west of this road which, according to your source should be "Layhill Valley Court" instead. I don't have local knowledge to day that this is definitely correct, but, if you're confident the source is correct, that road should be updated.

Hi, thanks for your updates in college park. There is one part of your changeset that's confusing. You've moved the node for Playa Bowls from along College Avenue to along Baltimore Avenue, but you didn't update the address fields.

I can't tell if the shop has changed it's location (in which case I'd like to update the address appropriately) or if you accidentally moved the node.

Thanks for the input. I went ahead and reconnected the road and added a barrier. I just used `barrier=yes` since I'm not sure what a better value would be. I also added `motor_vehicle=no` onto that part of the road. This should prevent any routing application from trying to route cars down this road.

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've noticed some changes you've made that do not seem correct. 1) You have changed the surface of soccer field from "grass" to "dirt". From prior visits to that field and from viewing recent aerial imagery, I think that "grass" is a more accurate description of the surface. If this has changed recently, then I appreciate the contribution of updated data, otherwise it should be kept as it was. 2) You've given the field a name "town field", but I do not recall this field having any specific name. Names in OpenStreetMap should avoid being descriptive, and should typically only be used when a feature has a specific name that can be independently verified. 3) You've set "building:levels" on a house to "e". This seems like a typo.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118402054

Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for adding this new construction area to the map.

I notice that you've used "Construction area" as the name of the new element. This typically isn't done in OpenStreetMap because such generic descriptions are not considered "names". In this case, the tag landuse=construction contains the same information as the name "Construction area", so the name can simply be removed. If you happen to know the name of the new development taking place here, then it would be appropriate to add that in the "name" tag. For example, see this construction area near Fort Totten: way/1022097816

You can also refer to this wiki page for more information about naming best practice: osm.wiki/Names#Good_Practice

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. Thanks for making contributions to the map in this area.

I noticed you've used ":D" as the name of wooded area you added. This isn't an appropriate name for a feature in OpenStreetMap. When adding names to elements, you should be careful to only add a name if it truly is the real name of name the feature. You can refer this wiki page for more information: osm.wiki/Names#Good_Practice

Hi, how exactly is the road impassable here? It seems to me that there might be a better way to represent this than deleting the affected segment if, for example, it is due to some construction or barrier in the roadway.

hi, this segment of road should not be deleted. While there are barriers blocking access to cars, the intersection is still traversable on foot or bicycle.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117296064

Hi, you change something from a pier to a dock in this changeset. Was that intentional?

Do not*

I have reverted this changeset along with changesets #115431980 , #115431686 , #115431664 , #115430418 , and #115430375 . Do upload such vandalism in the future.

Another change-set with the same pattern: changeset/114480515

I haven't been over that bridge for a couple weeks, but, iirc, it was replaced some time last year and has been open since then.

I tried to be clever and retroactively split up my changes into change sets for the three areas they were made in, but those changes sets didn't include deleted objects, so here's this. It's not that big so it's fine.

I've gone ahead and reverted this along with the other change sets (108246838, 108243048, 108233878, 108230894, 108223820) based on the same source.

Please revert this edit. It is based on out of date information.

Please revert this edit. It is based on out of date information.

This revert deleted some segments of road in College Park, MD. I'll restore them when I get a chance, but it may be worth checking that nothing else has been similarly affected.