Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap! When deleting closed businesses, it's better to just remove the name and set shop=vacant, rather than delete the node entirely, if it has any other information on it like the location's address.

OpenStreetMap maps what exists currently. If something is yet to be built or has recently been destroyed, use an appropriate lifecycle prefix: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix or feature=construction osm.wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts#.3Ckey.3E_.3D_.3Cstatus.3E_.2B_.3Cstatus.3E_.3D_.3Cvalue.3E
Here's my change changeset/117984726

Hello. Please make sure to add a changeset comment describing the changes you made, especially for changes this large. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

You don't need to be a master, or have lots of spare time, to help contribute! For example, OSM South Bay has a list of our current projects here: https://github.com/codeforsanjose/OSM-SouthBay/blob/main/README.md#current-projects The MapRoulette projects only take a few minutes per task, and the SDP POI one has detailed instructions linked on the task page.

I've also reverted this changeset in 117022304. If you can help it, try to improve building outlines instead of redrawing them totally. It's good practice to keep the history of objects as they improve: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history In this case, it also led to existing tags being removed: the building height, address, and elevation. You also shouldn't move buildings to align with aerial imagery. It's often the imagery that's actually offset, and there's a panel in the editor to let you adjust that. Finally, just because you can't find an editor preset for something doesn't mean it has to be tagged as something different. You can try searching the wiki, or asking for advice in the community communication channels.

To fix this, I've reverted this change, and some of your other changes that did similar things, in changeset/117022116. I'm sorry. If it helps, here's a guide on modeling intersections that might be clearer than tagging reference: https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/ Finally, I do encourage you to join either the Code for San Jose map nights (https://www.meetup.com/code-for-san-jose/) or the OpenStreetMap US Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/), where you can ask questions or ask for feedback. We're always looking for new members!

Thank you.

Hello, and thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. I see that this changeset makes a number of problematic changes to the Almaden/Cherry intersection. See here for how divided highways should be mapped: osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways In particular, multiple separate ways should only be used if there is a physical separation. Marked lanes can instead be mapped with various "lanes" keys: osm.wiki/Lanes Indeed, way/417059700 for example already has lanes information, making way/1022444949 redundant. Additionally, turn restriction relations 7680884, 7680885, and 7680886 are now broken, and some of the new ways cross existing ways without intersecting.

The "practice" in OSM is ATYL, meaning no tags are inherently wrong. osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like The page you linked says to use the tag "restriction", and the page on "lanes" describes how any tag can be combined with ":lanes", as was done here: osm.wiki/Lanes Finally, you have still not explained to me how any existing tags communicate that some lanes are no-right-on-red. You have removed information from the map with no adequate replacement.

What OSM practices did the restriction violate? How does the "turn:lanes" tag indicate "no right turn on red"?

This has been reverted in changeset/116628416.

This new road runs over a number of other pedestrian ways without adding crossing nodes. Please resolve these errors in iD before uploading.

I can still see the house in recent aerial imagery, so I've reverted this change in changeset/116437378.

What is this? Why did you entirely delete the house? There is no private information here, only the shape and address of a house. See this page for what OSM considers private information: osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information and this page for what OSM considers appropriate to be mapped: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

Hello, please read these 3 pages on the conventions of OpenStreetMap: osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element I don't know if it's valuable to map these sites as anything more than a note=* on the existing element. Even if it is, you've mapped these as buildings overlapping existing houses, which is invalid.

When adding traffic signals, please add them separately from the pedestrian crossings, which are separate objects.

Hello and thanks for your contribution to OpenStreetMap. It's good practice to use the changeset description to actually describe what you changed: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments Additionally, it's good practice to save the changes in one changeset in one local area before moving somewhere else. Many OSM tools use a bounding box to determine the area that a changeset covers, and it's tough to see what's changed when it covers half of a continent.

Reverted for destructive spam, illegal sources changeset/115062995

Please use a more descriptive changeset message: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments This one could say something like, "Deleted a redundant traffic light". However I notice that the traffic light you did map is incorrectly placed. Please read the article on traffic signals to learn how they should be placed.

Thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. This change adds duplicate information: highway=traffic_signals is already tagged at the stop positions, which is accepted practice: highway=traffic%20signals?uselang=en#Tag_all_incoming_ways In OpenStreetMap, we are careful to not tag things twice: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element