Hi, thanks for adding the addresses of these schools. However, combining the areas for Colchester Middle School and Malletts Bay School into one area named Colchester Schools is not correct. These are two separate schools so the previous modeling was better.

Hi, thanks for the information that this trail is not public. However, the preferred approach for non-public trails (and other features) is to add the tag access=private. This means the general public is not allowed and map renderings should treat it accordingly. I've reverted the deletion and applied this tagging.
changeset/123452523

Since I got no response, I've gone ahead and reverted the name back to "Vermont Route 108 South". Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss.

Hi dchiles,
I believe this change should be reverted. Although "Vermont Route 108" is the correct name for the full route, within the town of Cambridge there are two local road names used for addressing. North of Jeffersonville the suffix "North" is added and south of Jeffersonville the suffix "South" is added. The two addresses "2000 Vermont Route 108 North" and "2111 Vermont Route 108 South" are on opposite sides of town.
You can confirm this by looking at the VT E911 Viewer:
https://maps.vermont.gov/e911/Html5Viewer/?viewer=e911viewer

Thanks for updating this. Since its not clear if this an extended, but still temporary, closure or if it is permanent, I restored the deleted way but changed the tag to disused:route=ferry. This way it won't show up on maps, but it can easily be re-activated if starts operating again in the next couple years.

changeset/122736704

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Hi, JoshBDPW113,
Thanks for contributing to OSM in Vermont. To connect with other Vermont mappers, please join the OSM US Slack where we have a #local-vermont channel.
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

It appears you are adding access=private to a lot of driveways and privately maintained roads. I just wanted to give you a heads up that this is likely not correct usage of the tag in most cases. On its own, a sign reading simply "private" or "PVT" is not enough to indicate access=private, only ownership=private. A more strongly worded sign such as "keep out", "no trespassing", or a physical gate indicates access=private as well. It's important to not overuse access=private because it is a very strong restriction and routing engines will completely avoid all roads marked as such. It's generally not necessary to add access tags to driveways and privately maintained roads, but if you feel it's important, access=destination or access=delivery may be appropriate. Another appropriate tag is ownership=private.

access=private
access=*#List_of_possible_values

I've reverted this for you: changeset/118676080
Please do not save fictional data to OSM in the future.

Hi Steve, despite your comment stating that these edits should not be integrated into OSM, you succeeded in doing exactly that. Edits are saved directly into OSM as soon as you click the save button. Please revert the changes you've made if they don't represetnt real world features.
osm.wiki/Change_rollback

There's not need to cut stuff out of a baseball field to make it look the way you want. You can just draw the sand parts on top like I've just done with this one: way/220484121

1. Don't call people "sir douchebaggery"
2. A lack of errors in an error reporting tool does not mean this mapping is high quality (it is not)
3. OSM is not an art project. Individual style is fine as long as the resulting data is reasonably correct. Parks, sports fields, buildings, etc with pieces missing and holes cut out of them are not correct data.

Although the exact line where forest/woods begins is certainly somewhat subjective, every single a square foot of land covered by tree canopy is not forest/woods. Three trees in a park is not a forest. This would be more accurately mapped as thee individual tree nodes than as a tiny forest/woods area shaped exactly like the tree crowns.

Listening to feedback from other mappers is important in this collaborative project. Dismissing it and saying that it doesn't matter is not really acceptable.

Please consider joining the wider US mapping community on Slack and the #local-washington-state channel there.
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi bkuker,
The waterway relation looks good to me. The only thing I'd suggest is to add the culverts to the relation too since they are also part of the waterway.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116978760

I've also been following this thread without commenting in hopes of California mappers working things out among themselves. Since that clearly isn't happening I guess I'll pile on. I support a connected trunk network and I haven't found Adamant1's arguments for why a trunk route should stop at the edge of town convincing at all.

Don't worry @G1asshouse, everyone on Slack agrees with you that this should get reverted. It's been submitted to the DWG.

Thank you, OneC. Your efforts are much appreciated!

Thank you for reviewing. Please note that on its own, a sign reading simply "private" or "PVT" does not indicate access=private, only ownership=private. A more strongly worded sign such as "keep out", "no trespassing", or a physical gate indicates access=private. It's important to not overuse access=private because it is a very strong restriction and routing engines will completely avoid all roads marked as such. If you must apply an access value to road signed as "private" or "PVT", access=destination or access=delivery may be appropriate.

access=private
access=*#List_of_possible_values

Hi, OneC. It appears you are adding access=private to a lot of driveways and privately maintained roads. This is not correct unless these driveways all have "no trespassing", "keep out", or similar signs posted. To specify that a road or driveway is privately owned and maintained, the proper tag is ownership=private.

Thanks for contributing to OSM in VT, and please join the OSM US Slack where we have a #local-vermont channel.
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115482846

Thanks for updating the map here. I feel like there must be a good story behind this "sad experience". What happened!?

Hi, thank you for the detailed work on the Burlington Country Club. However, in this changeset you deleted a number of things without replacement. I see that you've since replaced some of the deleted buildings, but without the address information that previously existed. Looks like a forest area has also not been replaced. As this is a collaborative project, it is important to improve upon the work of others rather than deleting and replacing.
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114789606

https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C3LJ03BCY/p1638162053104400?thread_ts=1637039485.038000&cid=C3LJ03BCY