You deleted the building tag on this area. Please replace it.

There are two hotels in this building. How do you know that there is only one, and why did you leave a duplicate point?

This is an incorrect address, and you removed the building name again.

sorry, changeset/102872884

Reverted with changeset 102793838

This removes the heritage name of the building. Please undo this change.

Generally it's better to use access=private than to delete something just because it's "on private property"

Hi! While I appreciate the enthusiasm, you should really follow the [Import Guidelines](osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines) before importing anything. The local community has a few imports in progress, and a few imports planned—including street lamps! Join one of the [Code for San Jose](https://www.meetup.com/code-for-san-jose/) meetings some time and we can help you get the import ready for proper approval.

Why did you remove this? Have you checked that the hotel no longer exists? If so, it may be useful to change to disused:tourism=hotel rather than deleting it.

The map is only supposed to have one feature per item, however you have added 2 duplicate hotels and removed a useful point. Please keep the features as points like it was before, or make it an area or multipolygon, instead of multiple buildings. Additionally, please don't make individual changesets for single movements. Your last 3 changesets are all in the same area and could be made 1.

The map is only supposed to have one feature per item, however you have added 2 duplicate hotels. Please keep the hotel as a point like it was before, or make it an area or multipolygon, instead of multiple buildings.

The map is only supposed to have one feature per item, however you have added 6 duplicate hotels. Please keep the hotel as a point like it was before, or make it an area or multipolygon, instead of multiple buildings.

If you can, please try to adjust the existing building instead of deleting it and creating a new one. It looks like it hasn't lost much this time, but in general it's good practice to keep the attributes and history of any existing objects.

If you can, please try to adjust the existing building instead of deleting it and creating a new one. It looks like it hasn't lost much this time, but in general it's good practice to keep the attributes and history of any existing objects.

I know that the location of that address is correct. What I mean is, is there really a Togo's at that address? The person who filled out the form could have missed a digit in the house number, or put their home address by accident.

The changeset information gave me every reason to suspect it to be vandalism. It covers a large area, the description is a single word, the description does not describe what was removed or why, there is no "source" changeset tag to indicate that aerial imagery was the reason for removal, and your profile didn't have any additional information (except for a number of other similar-looking changesets, some with similar complaints). Additionally, broad removals are suspicious and hard to review in the first place. I will admit to also using short changeset descriptions sometimes, but more information is always better, and helps both the community and the project.

This looks like a house. Is it really the right address?

Removal of what? And why? Did you check that each thing is no longer visible in imagery?

Alright, sounds good. Thanks for contributing as well!

Yes, I helped build that MapRoulette project. In the directions, it says "Check that the address is to a business/office open to clients and not the business owner's house. Skip tasks in private residential areas." But if you think the person here wouldn't mind clients coming to the door (excepting pandemic restrictions), then it's fine.