Hello, did you mean to delete a suburb in England? It's made the bounding box of your changeset cover much of the north Atlantic, so it shows up for anyone looking at map history or reviewing changes in any of those areas

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise at first that the bounding box is this wide because of the Norway relation

Hello, please keep your changesets to a more constrained geographic area. It makes it harder for reviewers when changesets stretch across large areas.

Hello, please keep your changesets to a more constrained geographic area. It makes it harder for reviewers when changesets stretch across large areas.

Hi, it looks like you somehow moved an instrument landing aid in Florida slightly in this changeset

Hello, for the future, please scope your changesets to more local areas. The bounding box for this one stretches from Texas to Brittany, any anyone looking at changesets in local areas anywhere in that range will see this changeset.

Hi, for the future, please try and keep your changesets small in scope. Because you changed things in Mexico and in France, the bounding box for changes covers a very large area, and will show up in the data for anyone looking at changesets that impact anywhere in that box, which makes it harder to review changes

Looks like you might have accidentally removed the building tag on this building in Louisville? way/331282586

Hi, thanks for mapping! Wanted to point out 2 things I noticed
- You updated the `train` tag on Sullivan Station. `train=yes` isn't typically used for subway stops that other trains don't stop at, per the wiki train=*

- Your changes cover a couple of different areas. Various tools for looking at history in OSM use bounding boxes to decide if a change impacts an area. These are close enough together that I'm not actually concerned by it, but wanted to highlight it for the future

One pattern I've seen is to use a relation to group the parts of a street, which possibly might help clients. I'm not sure that exists for a lot of steers around here at the moment, I'd be curious if you see the same issue with e.g. Harvard St in Allston, which I believe is set up that way.

I would think that having both parallel footpaths and `sidewalk=both` would result in most clients interpreting there being essentially 2 sidwalks

The pattern in a lot of this area, including these streets, is to map sidewalks as footpaths in the physical location of the sidewalk, rather than as a tag on the street. It looks like both the streets that you've added `sidewalk=both` two are this way, so you might consider using `sidewalk:both=separate` instead, which indicates to other tools that the sidewalk is a parallel way.

Makes sense! I had initially interpreted the wiki's "legal access" that this would be private, since the signage/street book don't establish any further permission, and so I'd read permissive as being more posted access

Given this is a private way (both on the sign if I recall, and in Boston streetbook), I would think access (since access describes the legal status) should be `private`?

How did you conclude this was a oneway? MassGIS 2021 Aerial, Mapillary, and Bing Streetside all seem to agree that this is 2 way, and I don't recall Cambridge doing reconstruction