Not sure, but we were amused by:

way/53424226/history

Thanks!

Not sure that Ohio borders the DR Congo.

Thanks, I think I got them all this time. Let me know if you find any others I've missed.

Please acknowledge this message before proceeding with additional edits.

Hi, these are not properly tagged.
The relation should get:
type=boundary
boundary=protected_area
leisure=nature reserve

The member ways should get no tag.

As it is now you've introduced a bunch of duplicates which are showing up in this boundary QA tool:

https://zelonewolf.github.io/wikidata-qa/Rhode_Island_flagged.html

horse=destination, really? 😃
Putting all those access tags on driveways is not typical unless there's a special access situation.

Resolved in changeset/146344539
Thanks for catching this!

Ugh, I was afraid I missed one 😬 Feel free to revert and do-over if you can get to it before late this evening.

I agree, and based on this discussion, I am restoring natural=cape tagging.

This changed Kaena Point from a cape to a locality, which is wrong.

Cliff, you know the answer and now you're just unnecessarily busting my balls here with rule lawyering. This edit updates the tagging on TIGER-imported CDPs identifed by TIGER tagging that indicates that it's a CDP.

For example:
relation/237313

Tagged
tiger:NAMELSAD=Lakeview CDP

I scanned through enough of these with lookups to satisfy myself that these are all categorically CDPs. I felt this was a fairly obvious tagging cleanup and consistent with our norms. I do a lot of boundary work, it's fairly tedious and it involves a lot of lookups and corner cases. I didn't feel it needed a discussion as these cases were clear-cut.

Now, if you feel that this edit was wrong and I've overstepped our norms for these kinds of edits, feel free to revert it and start a discussion about whether these features should be tagged as CDPs and I'll focus my ongoing boundary efforts to other areas.

I stand by this edit as correct. boundary=census is a well-established tag for CDPs in the United States. That has been discussed ad nauseum.

If it's wrong, feel free to revert.

Reverted; this is a normal mapping practice. Please discuss in the United States section of the community forum before further removing pedestrian areas. https://community.openstreetmap.org/

changeset/145448850

Reverted; this is a normal mapping practice. Please discuss in the United States section of the community forum before further removing pedestrian areas. https://community.openstreetmap.org/

changeset/145448850

Reverted; this is a normal mapping practice. Please discuss in the United States section of the community forum before further removing pedestrian areas. https://community.openstreetmap.org/

changeset/145448850

Please undo this edit, this is normal mapping practice.

Thanks for adding this, these polygons will be really helpful for skiing applications.

Hello,

Your recent edits along Route 66 are being discussed on the OSM Community Forum:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-route-66

Please review that thread before editing further.

If you look carefully, you'll notice that between 29 and 30 Cliff Avenue, the road crosses into private property. North of that location it's outside the property boundaries.