No problem. Sorry that I took it the wrong way. Maybe I just got up on the wrong side of the bed that day.

If you find that someone (including me) has made an error, or has violated official OSM style guides, and you know how to fix it, then go ahead and fix it. That's how contributing works, and you don't need my permission to do it.

I can appreciate that as a new contributor you will have questions. I've been contributing for over a decade, and there's obviously still things I don't fully understand. However, if you were "trying to say that OSM style shouldn't have baseball or kickball fields named as such" then you should have said that to begin with. What you did instead was to question the source of my data (you specified a road name), then when I provided my source, you called it "suspicious." It was incredibly insulting. I apologize if I overreacted.

Having given it a little more thought; no, I do not want you to remove the names that you deemed "suspicious." I told you, I think I had a map produced by the land owner. It was too long ago to remember the specific details. That doesn't make it false. Please do your due diligence before deleting data that I, or any other OSM contributor has put work into.

That's your call.

It was a very long time ago. I think I had a tri-fold pamphlet map from the school.

Thanks for that example. I get it now.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Why would you want me to delete road names?

That's less specific. Thanks anyway.

Can you be more specific, please?

What is the specific location in this changeset that has a diferent speed limit in each direction? Have you fixed it? If not, I would appreciate it if you fixed it, and pointed it out to me so that I can see an example done correctly.

You also said that you have been mapping speed limit signs. You are correct that I'm not getting it. I haven't seen any point labeled as a speed limit sign. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Surfaces:
I disagree with your conclusion. Surface=dirt is more descriptive than surface=unpaved. The wiki clearly states that "unpaved" could mean any number of possible surfaces, and is not limited to different types of dirt.

Also surface=dirt is indisputably more descriptive and more useful than no data at all.

I do agree that gravel, compact, etc... is more descriptive than just "dirt," but I freely admit that it is also outside of my area of interest. I don't see any value in stopping to evaluate the dirt, because I don't think anyone using the map really cares. However, for a great number of people there is value in knowing whether a road is dirt so that they can route around it. I would argue that a great many more people want to rout around the dirt than care what kind of dirt it is.

As I told you before, when I drive past a road I look. If I see dirt, I log dirt, and I make an edit, because from my perspective dirt is dirt.

If you have a different perspective, please go and analyze the dirt, and make your own determination as to what kind of dirt it is. Go do your own survey. I'm not going to do that for you. Feel free to record whether the dirt is made of gravel or compact gravel or crushed seashells or gold flake. Get as granular as you like (pun intended). I promise I won't try to stop you.

Private roads:
So, you are trying to tell me that in the state of New Hampshire access to a private road is not implicitly restricted, and furthermore that signage indicating the road is privately owned does not expressly restrict assess? I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Lawyers have been debating the definition and circumstances surrounding private roads in NH since long before you or I were born, but one thing is sure: Private roads are private property to which access is limited. In short, you may use a private road only if you own it, by express permission, or if it is an easement to your own property. Thus in the state of NH Ownership=private most definitely means Access=private. If you think I'm wrong, go try parking on one overnight and see what happens.

"speed limits that are different in each direction" - Thanks for that. there are a couple of spots that I am aware of where this is the case, and I was not sure how to tag these

"surface#Values" - OK. I read it again. I'm not sure why you asked me to, but I did.

"I found at least one street that you tagged with access=private" Was it at least one street, or at most one street? I believe you are being hyperbolic again. Either way, which street or streets was it? I very recently did a survey of this area specifically to identify private roads, so I would like to identify the error.

Here is another one. I have not changed anything about it. If you can figure out what's going on with it, I'd like to know.
osm.org/#map=19/43.39534/-71.01828

OK. I left a similar comment on that changeset.

They have no meaning to me. There were duplicate objects, with identical geometry to bodies of water, on top of the bodies of water. The water bodies had no names, and the named objects had no descriptive tags, causing "Area has no descriptive tags" warnings. I just moved the names to the bodies of water and deleted the tagless objects. My best guess is that they are an artifact of the Tiger import, but they could be anything. I was just trying to clear the warnings.