Hi,
are these sections newly built?
way/1361840455
way/1361840456

They don't show on imagery from 2023.

Hi and welcome to OSM!
Perhaps you could draw that part as an area along it's true boundaries instead of placing there just a node.
Also there is dedicated tag for that leisure=dog_park that specify that this is a park for dogs.
You can even add some restrictions about the dogs weight or age. See here for more details: leisure=dog_park

Nice job, thanks for adding the sanctuary!
Per OSM definition it is not considered park, but a nature reserve. I went ahead and updated the tag.

Cheers

Hi,
I asked you multiple times in the past to follow our rules of editing and now again you choose to ignore them.

1) You created overlaps between fairway and green polygons,
2) you deleted and redraw objects, instead of editing their shape
3)You damaged residential landuse area

Please follow roles on our wiki including:
leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Hey! I think all looks great and I don't see any issues. Really a nice job!

If it helps you, you can switch to a better resolution aerial imagery. When Editing, press "B" and select "CT ECO Orthoimagery (2019)".

Cheers

Ok let's put it then into description field.

Hello,
does this pond have an actual name? We don't put descriptive names into name field.

Hello and welcome to OSM!

Per our definition this in indeed a nature reserve and not a park. Park are in urban areas with managed vegetation.

More info here: leisure=park

Hi and thanks contributing to OSM!

A few tips, you can search for information on how to map things on our wiki. For example barriers are here: barrier=* Or you can always ask on Slack/Discord or Community forum.

Also "Name" field tag is reserved for an actual name. Descriptive names like "Entrance Road to ..." should not go there. Sorry I had to remove it.

Cheers,
Martin

Hi Joseph,
sorry, I know that this feels frustrating, but it is certainly not about all edits to OSM. Road network is a bit of a special case. Not so long ago the road classification in US was a mess until quite long discussion and difficult agreement happened. Jnighan was part of that discussion for CT and put a lot of work in creating classification system that seems to work.

Now if people start doing tiny changes to what they personally perceive as not correct and then another group of people change half of that to something else because they have a different opinion and so on, then we end up again with a mess.

Therefore I think for this particular case it is good to discuss what the problem with the current classification is, how does the proposed change fixes that, and then also apply it consistently all cross the state.

Before I asked you to contact jnighan or start some discussion about it. Have you tried and what was the outcome?
changeset/157603271
I think he was still active on Slack.

Cheers

@brendan77
Thanks for pointing out the mistakes. Could you perhaps go through the original changeset of jnighan again and list all the changes that you identified as wrong?

This way we could think of an approach that would bring back the good edits while avoiding repeating edits that are clearly wrong.

Hi and welcome to OSM!
Thanks for editing, but unfortunately in one case you converted a while residential road into a gate. And in another case you created a duplicate road on top of existing road.
(I went ahead and fixed those issues)

If part of a road needs to get distinct information then you can select one of its nodes, right clicking on it and then selecting 'split'.

I suggest completing the Walkthough in the help section.

Also as a side note. Making road private acces is only possible when there is a gate or no trespassing sign.

Cheers

Hi Brendan,
can you be more specific. which still existing buildings got deleted?
I mostly see that information about churches got conflated onto building outlines and only a handfull of church POIs got deleted without replacement.

That's great. I am glad to hear that.
Thanks for working on the due diligence.

Hi,
is there any update on the license compatibility issue?

Thanks for replying. I see several problems here.

1) You didn't follow any of the steps from the import guidelines. At minimum, please create an import documentation page on osm wiki where you detail where you downloaded the data from, how were they processed, where you asked for permission and if the license is compatible. Then post an announcement message to the community forum and answer any comments there might be. This is all outlined in the guidelines linked by Mateusz.

2) The license message you linked is from year 2020. They might have given permission at that time, but we cannot assume it is forever. Please double check that the license is public domain or CC0.

3) The message says that Westchester County GIS needs to be credited. I don't see their name anywhere in the source tag or nor even in the comment message.

4) After you've gone through that all imports have to be marked in this list: osm.wiki/Import/Catalogue

If you have some questions you can contact us on Slack or Community forum.

This changeset was corrected.
node id 9021781541 moved back to original position

changeset/159703659

Hi,
please be careful. You often move nodes with addresses to a wrong location. If you accidentally make an adit that you didn't want you can always undo your changes with ctrl+z or clicking on the back arrow.

In this case it was this node: node/9008446356
I have moved it back.

Cheers

Hi,
this looks like an import rather than hand drawn shapes from imagery. What is the source of the data and is the license compatible with ODbL?

Sure. I also think that the current values scale very poorly for large countries like US, but how does it justify to do such dramatic change that will make the trails disappear from some maps? I missed discussion about this.

What is the idea for network values for the rest of the hiking trails countrywide? Are those values going to fix the hierarchy issue? Does that mean that global hiking map project will have to hardcode network values in order to infer hierarchy?
I fear that the change will be done on the scenic trails, but nothing will be done for the rest and we end up with some nonfunctional cat-dog hybrid.