"It will be completely deleted when merged to the primary relation(s)."

Are you still planning on deleting this?

@nathanerogers, you might want to check out umap (http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/new/#17/45.56673/-122.62325). It will allow you to create a personal map with your checkpoints.

OK. I went ahead and deleted them. Sounds a bit like an orienteering class. I've wanted to get into that. Too bad I don't live close enough to join you for the exercise.

Hi @nathanerogers. Can you tell us a little more about these checkpoints. I'm not sure they really belong as part of the map, but maybe you can explain it more and we can help you set up appropriate tags. Thanks.

Hey there @cbeddow. Whatever you're using to create those closed ways is creating duplicate nodes. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-108.50637&lat=45.81372&zoom=14&overlays=duplicate_node_in_way for some of them.

@Nakaner, maybe you can add a feature to only show actual errors (self intersecting ways, duplicate nodes, etc). Also, it would be helpful if OSMI could put some language in the pop-up for long segments saying that people shouldn't fix them.
As for the Bermuda Triangle, I reverted my change a day or two ago as the consensus seems to be to not fix this class of (non-)problem.

Some more discussion on the topic is taking place on the US Slack instance: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1540853913092600

From the OSM Inspector wiki page: "So while it might not be a "proper" solution its certainly pragmatic to make the segments shorter. Another problem is due to the current implementation of the OSM API: When requesting all objects inside a bounding box only nodes in this bounding box and ways having a node in this bounding box will be returned. (This is done because it is more efficient.) So the longer the segments are and the smaller the bounding box the bigger the chances that some object will not be returned from the API call and might not appear on the map."

Another reason for breaking these up is that any accidental moves of a way (to 0,0 for instance) would be masked by all of the other long segments that exist. If we segment the long ways, any mistakes that are made will be more likely to stick out rather than be obscured by many other valid long ways. So my argument is that you need to "clean" them all up in order for mistakes to stand out.

Also, thanks very much for the discussion. I appreciate the feedback.

IMHO, that makes complete sense for straight, smaller ways. But for massive ways it becomes a problem when the nodes that define the way are far outside of the bbox that you are querying for. You aren't aware that a way is traversing your work and that might cause an issue. It's one of the reasons OSM Inspector calls it out as a problem.

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. Just to let you know, there is a handy feature in iD that will "square" the buildings that you create. After you draw a circle, press 's' to make all of the corners be 90 degrees. Or you can right-click on the area and select the "Square" function that way.
Thanks again. We hope to see you continuing to add features to the map.

Blargh. Chose the wrong changeset comment again. Sorry. Should say, "Removing duplicate nodes".

Oops, got out of my rhythm. The changeset comment should be "Removing some duplicate nodes" and the source is "OSM Inspector"

For instance, see v1 of way/636085409 and nodes 5998800364 and 5998811585.

I noticed something interesting about the buildings that you are creating. They often have a node in the middle of a straight segment and that node is duplicated in place which triggers validation errors in OSM Inspector. You might want to see if you can prevent this from happening in your editor or double check after you create buildings and clean them up.

Removed way that has no basis in satellite imagery and no response from creator.

Thanks for submitting improvements to the map! I think you are the first person I've seen get the opening_hours format correctly on their first edit! :)
One feature you might want to know about is the tool that can "square" the corners of a building. Since most are built with 90 degree angles, pressing 's' after you draw a rectangle will make sure all the angles are 90 degrees.

Please find a less offensive way to test proper attribution of OSM next time.

Hey there Morgan. I love (some of) your movies. :)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Thanks for your contributions. I noticed that one of your "buildings" actually connected to a road, which triggers some validation warnings that you probably weren't aware of. As a rule of thumb, you want to make sure buildings surround just the physical structure of a building and not things like yards and driveways and such.

FYI, there are a couple of problems with this path that you uploaded. The first is that every single point was duplicated. I'm assuming there is a problem with your import. I went ahead and deleted every duplicate node. But you might want to be aware so that you don't repeat the mistake on your next import if you use that same workflow. The second problem is that the path doesn't seem to match reality. I don't see anything like it from satellite imagery. It doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it doesn't look quite right.