crossing:signals=no is implied on crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=unmarked so please stop adding them.

Happy mapping
Udar

My main issue is that when land use is attached to roads if those roads are edited in such a way that vertexes are added or removed the size of the change set becomes unnecessarily large because the land use also gets edited. Also if a road becomes dual carriageway it will have to be split from road anyways.

crossing:signals=no on crossing=uncontrolled is implied so please stop adding it.

crossing:signals=no on crossing=uncontrolled is implied and thus shouldn’t be added, please stop doing this, this also applies to crossing:signals=yes on crossing=traffic_signals since that to is implied.

Please stop connecting landuse to roads.

Please stop adding crossing:signals=no on crossing=uncontrolled since that is implied on ways with crossing=uncontrolled. Also on crossing=traffic_signals crossing:signals=yes is implied so please stop adding these.

Please stop adding crossing:signals=no on crossing=uncontrolled since that is implied on ways with crossing=uncontrolled.

Please stop adding crossing:signals=no on crossing=uncontrolled since that is implied on ways with crossing=uncontrolled.

What does “Bug Fixes” even mean. Next time please leave a better change set comment. Also split up you commit into several geographically smaller changes.

When something is tagged as crossing=traffic_signals that means that it is what it so so next please don’t switch it to crossing=marked especially when the pedestrian crossing signals are already mapped.

crossing=uncontrolled is preferred over crossing=marked so please stop converting ways that have already been tagged crossing=uncontrolled and converting them to crossing=marked.

A few notes here:

First of all according to taginfo “bicycle=not specified” isn’t used often if not at all so a different tag would be preferable. From my understanding of how this was tagged it seams to me that “bicycle=not specified” would have the same meaning as “bicycle=customers” since when there isn’t a sign specifying that a certain mode of transportation has different access on a section of road or sidewalk it is implied that it is the default and since this is a (I assume) only for customers (since its in a cemetery) it would be “bicycle=customers”. As a small note since “bicycle=customers” would be the default on the way “bicycle=customers” probably shouldn’t be added since it would be implied.

Second off all, on secondary roads going into highways (in this case HEFT) bicycle=no is implied so shouldn’t be added.

Why do you insist so much on refusing to work with the community here, good change set comments are community consensus for a reason, you have been asked by multiple other contributors to add good change set comments multiple times before, this isn’t just me.

Change set comments have multiple purposes they allows those of us using tools like osmcha to to filter for keywords and other parts of commits to figure out what needs work and what’s being done so as to keep osm as up to date and accurate as possible. They also allow me (and I’m sure others) to every day go through the new commits on the history tab of the main osm website in Miami dade and sort what needs to be prioritized when it comes analyzing type change sets in osmcha. So yes change set comments serve a critical purpose, they allow other contributors to determine what’s being done on the main osm website without having to use external tools and they also serve as a quick history of what’s been done in an area or by a specific contributor.

I can understand your logic if you were the only contributor in the area, but you aren’t, there are others also contributing her in Miami dade. This isn’t just you doing what ever you want there are others.

Honestly something simple like “added service roads and tracks” would have been plenty for this commit. That would have taken all of 5 seconds to write and everyone would be happy; this isn’t hard. None of us completely agree with everything that is done and all of the tagging scheme changes that happen, but they happen, are decided upon by the community and are what they are, trust me there are several things that are community consensus that I don’t like but I still follow the community consensus since it is important to do so. OSM is run democratically and that is a good thing, you wont be 100% happy with every thing but it still needs to be followed.

Remember that OSM isn’t just a hobby project, the data base is used by many large corporations and nonprofits to help other people everyday which is why it needs to be heavily scrutinized and change set comments help with that. This isn’t some small project run by 10 people it’s a huge project with millions of contributors and thousands of commits a day, we have to work together and follow the consensus.

And personally I don’t think that just being there to explain his change sets is good enough, he really should add good change set comments since it allows for easier collaboration along with allowing other contributors that work on improving the map in Miami dade to get a good idea of what was done in the commit at a glance, OSM is a community effort after all, we must all do our best to work together and good change set comments in my opinion are an important pillar of that.

He added some service roads, tracks, fences and farm auxiliary buildings.

Next time can you please leave a change set comment that better describes what you did in the commit. For more information see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Why did you remove that this is an island, it certainly looks like and island

next time can you leave a change set comment describing what you did, something like "updated multi-storey at Jungle Island" would have worked well enough for this commit; for more information see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments .

It is still best practice to leave a commit message describing what was done in the commit for other contributors to better understand what was done at a glance and since all of these publicly available and is essentially a VCS of its own so the same reasons having good commit messages in those contexts also apply here. It stands that “.” Isn’t a good change set comment so I would really recommend that you take a good look at osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments and in the future leave better change set comments as it has been recommended to you in the passed, see osm.org/user_blocks/15322.

Changeset comments are useful to allow others reviewing change set to understand what happened in the commit and promotes trust. They are also just community consensus best practice. All commits are public so its good to have good descriptions for what each commit for the same reason change set comments are used in other VCS’s, allowing for changesets to be easier found when trying to track down an issue and when it was introduced. For more information please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments.