Oops. Got sloppy and reused previous changeset description. Ignore this. There are no hydrants to see out here.

Hello Long_496,

I needed to revert this change because it moved a couple of nodes that were part of roads and that moved made the roads be out of whack. Let me know if you need help replacing your changes.

My robot didn't *modify* anything about the street address. Could you modify your notification robot to make sure the person that last edited the object that happens to have a problem with the address format is only notified if they are modifying the address? Thanks.

Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation and tagging fix @jhmeniscus. It made me remember days of playing Nerf football in our cul-de-sac when I was a kid. We would have loved to have had a real grid laid out.

Hi there baradam, I came across several features that you've mapped that are similar in style to relation/5587666 where you make use of other ways, or parts of other ways in order to define a multipolygon relation to make up a different feature. I reached out to the OSM community on Slack and they all seem to agree that it would be better if those relation polygons were instead a separate way, leaving the other ways to be whatever they are supposed to me.

Would you have any objection to me making those changes when I come across it, or do you have some strong feelings or arguments to keeping the style that you've mapped with?

Thanks.

Thanks wwhide for fixing up the paths. I've changed the building=yes to be building=roof to indicate there are no walls. Does that sound good to you?

Cool. I kind of thought that might have been the case. Thanks.

Hi QuintB, can you tell me what this way is supposed to be? way/844353376

It doesn't have any tags.

>Apparently, @b-jazz seems to understand why I have reverted your changesets. Well, maybe because @b-jazz is more experienced than you are? Or, maybe because @b-jazz thinks before he/she acts?

@GITNE, please don't take my discussion for what I think is likely a better way to handle mapping of addresses as condoning your abusive behaviour towards another mapper. I don't.

If there is a community standard of how to map "correctly", I have yet to be shown the discussion and buy-off and publication of it. And if anyone ever inadvertently goes astray of those published guidelines, I'd hope that you do a better job of educating them in the future and fostering an environment of cooperation and community.

That’s unfortunate and that tone is uncalled for. I’m sorry to see that you were on the receiving end of it.

I do like the style of putting addresses of multi-unit structures on entrance nodes instead of a separate nodes in the middle of the building. If 99.9% of the mapping isn’t done in that style, it doesn’t mean that the style isn’t the desired one going forward, so I wouldn’t use that excuse personally since you’ve got to start somewhere. I’d also like to see where this was discussed and agreed on with the community. The claim of it having to do with the “OSM data model” Doesn’t make any sense to me.

@GITNE, can you provide a link to your original interaction with @tguen where you had a civil conversation? Apparently I’m entering in the middle of the conversation and it has taken a very wrong turn and isn’t what the community wants to see in how we interact with each other. Thanks.

Hey there rivermont,
Can you take a look at my diff (changeset/89883891#map=16/33.9102/-78.3776) which untangles some crazy waterways. I'm not sure what it is supposed to look like, but your recent fix did something weird. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, so I took a wild stab at it. Maybe you could provide additional insight. Thanks.

I'm not sure where the taxiway is supposed to end on the following way: way/326479982, but as it is, it is looking a little odd at the NE corner.

Hello Scrapper81, can you take another look at way/454773823? It seems to have been accidentally shifted while other elements were shifted and it doesn't look correct. Thanks.

Hello Wolf, do you know what the purpose of way/837453838 is? It has no tags, is the length of the state of R.I. and appears very close to the border. I don't think it should exist. I'm not sure if there are others similar to it, but I noticed this will looking at some other things.

Hello Oregon. I'm trying to understand the reason that the long ways were split up into small road segments when you were adding stop signs. (way/522775123 for example)

There shouldn't be any need to break them up as far as I'm aware, but maybe you know some reason that I haven't considered yet. I'd like to get them all combined back into a single way (when appropriate) but don't want to break anything you've worked on.

Is there some need for a single road to be made up of dozens of small segments?

Thanks.

I've removed what I can only assume is vandalism on the "VALOR" building. If I've done this in error, please let me know how.

Hi grant977, first off, thanks for all of your great contributions to OSM with all of the golf course mapping you've done recently. However, I've noticed a lot of QA errors are being raised for some of your ways, specifically nodes that have the same exact lon/lat values. I see from this changeset that it looks like the iD editor might be flagging those as well (warnings:close_nodes:vertices). Are you seeing these errors when you edit? It would be great if you could take a minute to clean them up before you submit so that others won't have to later. If you're not seeing these, we should probably file a bug against iD to make sure they are more visible. Thanks!

Thanks! Those building shapes look a lot more sane now. :)

Hello Ohio,

You might want to go back and look at your import in this changeset (and possibly others using the same methodology). There are a ton of unconnect nodes being dropped all over the place. And for a possibly related reason, some of the house geometry is making some strange non-rectangle zig zags around. Check out the following node in a sea of other unconnected nodes: node/7791950986