Yes, please do your best to keep the history. Simply deleting and replacing the work of other mappers is frowned upon in the OSM community. You can find more information about how to do this here:
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

I went ahead and changed this segment and another one nearby to highway=track as that is the more accurate primary tag anyway.
changeset/127599298

Looks like these might be old abandoned logging roads. I can see them on VCGI LiDAR, but I don't have on the ground knowledge of the state they are in.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I have reverted this changeset as the building you've added here does not exist.
changeset/127598828

Hi there, thanks for working on trails in Vermont! This unclassified road looks a little out of place though. Was it a mistake?
way/1099761510

Again, thank you for adding address tags to this school. However, I and other Vermont mappers are not thrilled with the other changes you've made here. You deleted the previously mapped school grounds polygon and replaced with with a polygon presumably taken from the VT parcel dataset. You didn't list a source though, so I'm not sure. Including the large area of forest the school happens to own as part of the amenity=school polygon is not very helpful, as OSM does not aim to be a parcel map. In addition to not keeping the history for this object, you didn't copy over the tags from the previous object. Some of the gnis tags are certainly fine to get rid of, but gnis:feature_id and wikidata are both useful and should be preserved.

Presumably you removed the name tag from this school building because you felt it was redundant to have the same name on the building and the grounds area. However, now the address information is disconnected from the name and this is not an improvement. One can only see that 170 Main Street is a generic school building, and the object named Main Street Middle School has no address. Please preserve the address tags on the same object with the school name. It is also fine, and not redundant, to have the same address tags on the building and the amenity=school area around it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127059198

Why did you delete the recreation ground another mapper added here? The recreation fields near schools are often mapped this way here in Vermont.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127060671

Hi, you replaced a school node with an area here, but you only preserved the amenity, and name tags, deleting the rest. Please do not do this. There was useful information in those tags, especially the address information.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127061565

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