A tagging recommendation: The harbor area should be tagged as a marina, not a boatyard. A boatyard is dry land storage, not on the water.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58635585

Looks good! You might want to tag the beach as natural=beach rather than surface=beach.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58635492

Oh, and thanks for making a contribution to the map! Welcome to OSM!

Hi! Since you asked for a review of this changeset, I took a look at it, and I do have some feedback:

You specified that Portage Lake is not an intermittent water feature. This is fine, but in general this doesn't need to be specified. We can assume that most lakes aren't.

I'm a little unsure about the canal that you created. This feature doesn't really seem like a canal to me. I think that the area between the two breakwaters is just Lake Michigan. In my opinion it would be better to delete this and leave just two bodies of water: Lake Michigan and Portage Lake. Another option would be to tag the channel between the two lakes (not including the part between the breakwaters) as a canal. But that should be separate from Lake Portage, i.e. they shouldn't overlap.

Lastly, the lights on the end of the breakwaters are marine navigation lights, and there's a special tagging system for those: osm.wiki/Seamarks/Lights It's _really_ complicated though.

That's better, thanks! If you're having trouble seeing something clearly in the satellite imagery, sometimes there are better options available. In this area, "Esri Word Imagery (Clarity) Beta" looks like the best option.

Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding detail to the map: It's appreciated.

These houses you've mapped are a little below the standard that we hope to see in the map. Where the imagery is clear enough, could you try to bring them a little closer to reality? I improved one of them as an example.

Thanks again for contributing!

Looks good! Thanks for adding the book store
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58384405

Hey, just an FYI, I think you've aligned Northmen Drive to old imagery in this changeset. Take a look at the Esri World Imagery layer (in iD) in this area. I'm pretty sure that's the only imagery layer that's recent enough to show the realignment of this road.

By the way, nice work on all the improvements you've been making in the Petoskey area! It's looking good!

I fixed the Washington and Washington/Wabash stop_area relations. My offer stands: If you have any questions about the Chicago system, please reach out.

Also, thanks for the tools you've built to improve OSM public transport data!

P.S. Feel free to reach out to me for clarification. I don't live in Chicago any more but I did for some time. Subway entrances in the Loop are tough to untangle. There's the Blue line under Dearborn St, the Red Line under State St, and then the elevated lines above Wabash. Some of the underground stations are connected by passageways, others aren't. Also, the Red Line Loop stations are basically all connected with one long platform.

Thanks for helping out with the Chicago PT situation. FYI in this changeset you added some Red Line subway entrances to the Washington/Wabash Brown/Purple/Orange/Green Line station, which is incorrect. The two aren't linked.

relation/2588154
relation/7556563

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55300360

Hey I wanted to drop you a note about these park changes. You don't really need to tag a park as a pedestrian area. If it's important that pedestrians be able to route through it, there are probably paths that could be mapped.

If there aren't, and you feel you have to map it as an area, "way=pedestrian" wouldn't be the right way to do it. Maybe "highway=pedestrian", but I still wouldn't recommend this.

Hey thanks for adding these details! Just a quick note about roads: "Unclassified" is actually a valid road type (despite the confusing name). It just means any non-residential road that isn't more important in the road network hierarchy. I've changed Main St. back to Unclassified, since that's a better tagging for it than Residential.

Thanks again!

Hey thanks for adding these details! Just a quick note about roads: "Unclassified" is actually a valid road type (despite the confusing name). It just means any non-residential road that isn't more important in the road network hierarchy. I've changed Main St. back to Unclassified, since that's a better tagging for it than Residential.

Thanks again!

Looks pretty good, Drewbo! Nice job picking an alternate (and better) set of imagery.

Thanks for contributing to the map, but you need to stick to mapping things that really exist in the real world. I'm going to remove some of the things you added, and make other fixes. Please be more careful in the future! If you have any questions about OSM or how to make, feel free to ask.

Hi! Thanks for adding your office to the map. However, it doesn't seem to be in the right location. In the satellite imagery, the feature you added is in the middle of some trees. Could you move it to the accurate location of your office?

Hi! Thanks for editing the map, but in this case the tagging was correct before. The West Boardman Lake Trail is still in the planning status, so the proper tagging for it is:

highway=proposed
proposed=cycleway

That way it will be correctly identified as a potential trail, not one that exists (yet) in the real world. You can read more about proposed tagging in the OSM wiki here: proposed=*

I've switched the tagging back, so you don't need to do anything about this. Thanks again for taking an interest in the map!

Actually, that should be note #1132549