Hello - a couple notes on some of your changes around Georgetown Elementary:
- Please do not delete features just to redraw them (like the school building or the baseball field). Deleting + redrawing results in the object's history being lost. If you find a feature to be misplaced, move it, if it's shape isn't represented correctly, add or remove nodes as appropriate but keep the feature itself.
- Please note that some imagery is terribly misaligned. This is particularly true when you're working with bing and one of the high-zoomlevel tiles is missing and a lower res level gets pulled in instead (like around the school). The perfect solution to this issue would be to realign your imagery to a gps track before moving objects around. Since a gps track isn't always available, aligning the imagery to something that is known to be right (like a nearby street that has been mapped already) is usually a feasible workaround. You can find more details in the wiki*.
- some buildings with "holes" in them (like the school). These "holes" are typically cut out of the building shape by creating something that's called a multipolygon. These are a little trickier to create than "normal" buildings. Essentially, you draw the outer shape; you draw a separate polygon for the piece that needs to be cut out; and then you create a relation that tells osm how these two polygons belong together. The wiki ** has a detailed example of how this is done in the iD editor you're using.

If you need any help, please let me know.

Thanks,

* osm.wiki/Using_Imagery#ID

** osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#iD

Mh, so it's not a lack of proper tools but a lack of willingness to use a tool that's actually fit for the purpose (finding out whether a change set affects your area of interest or not) then?

One could turn that productivity argument around very easily - thousands of volunteers work on improving the map around the world during their limited free time. They do not have the time to create a separate change set for every node they touch, writing a half page essay for a change set comment every time.
I get the "it's disrespectful" argument to a degree - but, that one as well can be seen differently: Forcing thousands of editors around the world to trade their productivity because a smaller number of individuals isn't willing to use the proper tools can certainly be seen as being disrespectful too (think: "I can't be bothered to use a better workflow, so everyone should do everything they can to make my personal life easier").
What one person considers an appropriate change set size (country? state? county? city?) may still be unacceptably big for others (say, someone who focuses on a particular neighborhood only).
On the other hand, cutting change sets like this one (which do one thing only, just spread over a large bbox) into potentially hundreds of individual change sets is not exactly fun to review either. IMO there is no sweet spot - you'll always find somebody who will be offended.

Finally, the "if you have plenty of time then go fix it" argument isn't fully consistent either. Some individuals clearly have the time to comment on almost _every_ big change set. It would have taken a second or two to copy/paste the change set id into one of the tools linked above - much less than this whole discussion. Also the logic seems a little off. It would stand to reason that the individuals feeling they need better tools should have the highest interest in driving the improvement of the tools. Delegating that seems completely backwards (think: "Until I get the tool I want, I'm gonna enforce an arbitrary set of rules that I myself consider appropriate and if somebody doesn't like them they're free to give me said tool").

All of that being said - I'm not saying big change sets are good per se (in all honesty I'm not exactly a fan of them either, especially when all they touch is one park bench in california and one turn restriction in china); I'm just saying that there's other perspectives as well and this whole "all big change sets are inherently evil" attitude feels a little over the top sometimes; and grouping changes of the same type in one (potentially large) change set can make sense.

If anyone is interested in an actual solution to navigate to achavi from osmcha without having to copy/paste the changeset id: you may be interested in the osm smart menu browser extension*. It adds a little toolbar button that lets you jump between all sorts of osm related websites and services. That way, the achavi site with the correct changeset selected is literally two clicks away from osmcha.

* osm.wiki/OSM_Smart_Menu

Could anyone explain what's wrong with using overpassapi +changesetmap or achavi for reviewing whether a changeset affects your particular local area as suggested above?
Since it's the same group of individuals complaining about large changesets regularly, I'd be curious to hear their perspective.

Hi - thanks for getting back on this.
Per the wiki linked above, the official name is to be tagged separately (using the official_name=* tag) while the "normal" name is supposed to follow a standard pattern that does not necessarily match the official name.

Hello - could you explain your thought process behind renaming the bus relations using a nonstandard pattern? The documentation in the wiki* says to use "Bus <ref>: <from> => <to>", not "<from> - <to>" for the route; and "Bus <ref>" for the route master (that's exactly how it was tagged before your change).

Also, both, the northbound AND the southbound relation are called "Ashbury - Naperville Metra" now while one of them actually travels opposite direction - this looks bizarre, wouldn't you agree?

Finally, per the same documentation, role=stop appears to be discouraged for adding the stops to the relation; so I was wondering why you changed the role=platform to role=stop?

Thanks,

* osm.wiki/Buses

Hello - please note that there's a difference between highway=turning_circle and highway=turning_loop. While a node tagged with highway=turning_loop can be replaced by a circular highway=* without changing the meaning, the same is not true for highway=turning_circle. If there isn't something (non-traversable) in the middle of the thing then please don't draw it as a circular way but tag the endpoint accordingly instead.

Documentation can be found here:
highway=turning_circle
and here:
highway=turning_loop

Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110302043

:). This is a never-ending project...

Hi - the buildings you added back in on the ogden mall lot (between Iroquis and Naperville/Wheaton Rd) had been deleted because thez have been razed to make room for a new CostCo that just opened. I'm going to redelete them, they don't exist anymore. The bing imagery is outdated.
Thanks,

Cześć - budynki, które dodałeś w centrum handlowym "Ogden Mall" (pomiędzy Iroquis Ave i Naperville/Wheaton Rd) zostały usunięte z mapy, ponieważ zostały one zburzone ok. rok temu. Jest tam teraz nowy budynek (sklep CostCo).
Prosze nie dodaj tych budynków ponownie, one już nie istnieją. Zdjęcie lotnicze bing jest nieaktualne. Dzięki.

This is great, thank you!

Hi - thanks for getting back on this - that makes sense.
Yeah, if you don't mind closing the gaps in Ashwood park based on the imagery you have, that would be fantastic. There's a bunch of gaps a little north of the one you closed already; some on Carpenter Rd and Laceback Lane; and two or three just south of 111th (Little Leaf Rd / Christa Dr).
Thanks for your help, it's much appreciated!

Hi - I saw you closed a gap in the sidewalk on Shumard Ln (between nodes 8911835667 and 8911835666) is there a publicly available image source that's based on? Asking because all the imagery I could find shows either brownfield or construction, but nothing that actually has that stretch of sidewalk (yet).
If you found better/more up to date imagery somewhere, I'd be thrilled if you could share where to find it...I've been mapping tons of houses and sidewalks in this general area and left quite a couple of gaps where stuff wasn't there yet at the time the bing/mapbox/esri aerials were taken.

Thanks!

Yeah, I get that the app alone isn't enough, but you also have to link a credit/debit card or other payment form to apple/google pay.
The reason I'm struggling is something I read about Walmart not too long ago - I don't regularly shop there myself, so this is just hearsay: Apparently they have something called Walmart Pay - However: Their system appears to be incompatible with google pay and apple pay. In other words: You can pay with WalmartPay in their stores, but not with ApplePay or GooglePay. Now this may not be a perfect example since I believe it is based on QR codes (technically still contactless, I guess; but in a different way for sure).
I believe that SamsungPay is special too since they use MST in addition to NFC.
Are you saying that a merchant accepting any form of contactless payments is guaranteed to definitely accept both google pay and apple pay? If a place supports MST transactions only (no NFC), payment:contactless=yes would seem appropriate (bc of Samsung), but neither applepay nor googlepay would work. What am I missing?
And, in addition, doesn't the payment provider decide what they process vs what they don't? Similar to both Visa and Discover using EMV, but some places only accepting the one or the other, depending on the agreements they have with their payment providers?
Sorry for asking so many questions, this is super interesting.

One more thing on the brand tags in ID - I found this comment dating back to January, stating that the list just appears to be shipped as part of a new ID release (that would explain why you don't see the updated tags right away):
osm.wiki/Talk:Name_Suggestion_Index#How_soon_will_iD_receive_data_updates.3F

Tagging the generic "payment:contactless" in addition certainly won't hurt; I'll do that going forward (and, looking this up on the wiki, at least the apple entry explicitly says to also tag payment:contactless).
Are you 100% sure that a place accepting contactless payments (the generic) necessarily implies that they accept both, google pay and apple pay though (and any custom wallet app somebody may have thrown out there)? That seems counterintuitive - the payment provider clearing the transactions on the merchant's behalf could accept the one but not the other, no?

Mmmh, before I change it, do you have an example of what you mean by "cargo docking bay" and/or how you see that as being different from a ramp? I'm not sure if we're talking about two different things or just using different verbiage for the same thing.
The way I interprete the Esri (Standard) imagery is that this is concrete, slightly sloped towards the building (that is, the southern end touching the asphalt of the service road is the highest point; the northern end touching the building is the lowest point (below ground level, actually). See the shadows on the right side little (diagonal) retention wall. The darker asphalt to the left of that doesn't appear to be a shadow cast by the building, but maybe patched asphalt (see the direction of all other shadows in the area).

Did you actually check the NSI link? Or review the wikidata item? Q41171672 is being used with both, brand=ALDI and brand=ALDI Süd, based on the country (see NSI link above). In the US, all stores are branded as ALDI (not ALDI Süd). That's what the name and brand tags reflected after my change.
Q1250054 doesn't have a brand entry anymore in NSI - For a very good reason - There is no such thing as a single "ALDI". There are two completely independent companies (different shareholders, different management, different headquarters, different product on the shelves, different markets), both calling their stores "ALDI" in one country or another. Capturing both under the same brand tag is semantically incorrect (and has been handled in this incorrect fashion for a long time). They are not the same brand.
None of this has anything to do with the parent holding company, your Yum brands example is not equivalent.

If I decided to open a store tomorrow and call it Walmart, I'm sure you sure wouldn't tag it as Q483551 either...

You may be interested in the discussion that led up to the split of the aldi brand in NSI (it wasn't me proposing this split): https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/5109

I don't know why ID is using an outdated set of brand presets in this case - my assumption is that it isn't updated from NSI on the fly but only periodically. I'm sure you'll see the updated presets in a couple of days.
Until then, I'd respectfully ask you not to change Q41171672 back to Q1250054 - as explained above, Q1250054 is a hodgepodge of two completely different brands that coincidentally happen to have the same name.

Interesting thought on the google/apple pay. They are listed as valid values on the wiki though, and removing them is a loss of information (because, no matter what cc's the store accepts, they may or may not have terminals that are ready & enabled for mobile payments through google pay/apple pay, so I'd argue that removing them without a replacement is a disimprovement).

Just as with the other changeset I commented on earlier - please don't change aldi stores back to Q125054. This is completely ambiguous.
Also you appear to be including the ramp leading to the truck dock (concrete, flat on the ground, not a raised structure) in the building outline now. Is there a reason for this?

Actually, this is not a correction. Please review the aldi brand tagging under https://nsi.guide/index.html?t=brands&k=shop&v=supermarket&tt=aldi
This has recently changed.

Aldi (US) is a fully owned subsidiary of Aldi Sud.
The Q1250054 ("Aldi") brand was being used for subsidiaries of ALDI Sud and ALDI Nord around the world. Nord and Sud are completely separate companies though; with neither owning the other (fully or partially). They're not related.
That being said, the old tagging was imprecise, because it mixed two semantically different brands in one tag value. Your "correction" therefore reintroduced the ambiguity that I had previously fixed.

Apart from that - any particular reason why you removed some of the payment tags?

both the oh and paym opt can be verified on the company's website.

Hi Andy - I saw these, long after they were added, so I decided not to discuss them further. The question that was being asked in the one was related to the usage of a specific tag, which is documented in the wiki.
The other one was related to changeset comments, and very much like the one you posted above, referred to a changeset that touches a single (type of) object in a very small area. _Any_ description in the comment would be 100% redundant of the change itself (what additional information do you gain from "added opening hours" if the change was, well, adding opening hours?). I do agree that changeset comments _can_ be extremely useful, especially when deleting objects (where they explain the "why" rather than the "what") and/or with big change sets (as a summary), but see them as zero-value-add, redundant extra work in cases like this one here specifically.
This feels like
i++; // increment i by 1
-->not technically wrong, and certainly great for comment coverage KPIs, but aside from that, pretty much useless...

review request can be ignored, this was selected inadvertently.