Thanks. I'll try to re-survey when I'm out there again (probably a couple of weeks).

Re: Colorado River Bridge -- was this marked as access=no due to construction? If so, has the construction been completed?

Hi,

In the future please do not glue landuse areas to roads. The line represented by the way is the centerline of the road (unless changed by a placement=* tag) and the grass (in this case) ends well before that.

Correction, note/2277660 (pasted wrong note number)

In the future could you please be a bit more descriptive in your changeset comments? "updated features" doesn't really say a whole lot. "Changed woods to construction; extended roads; updated name of park" etc is much more helpful.

There may have been one or two good edits in there but a lot of the time when there's that much rubbish, it's just easier to revert the whole thing rather than sift through the cow dung to try to find the tiny specks of gold.

Wow. Have you ever filled a changeset to the 10000 item limit with reverts?

Hi,

In the future, could you please describe your changesets with meaningful comments, not just "."? This would be a huge help to those going through the history to see what certain edits were. Thanks!

If you can remember, what exactly are/were ways 531272547 and 531272548, tagged only as "leisure=yes"?

A change to the city boundary of Sugar Land is NOT a "minor change[]" and you need to explain exactly where you are getting your data from that the city government of Sugar Land has changed its boundaries. You added node/8511994000 to way/33262293 which is part of relation/6586823 describing the city limits of Sugar Land, adding a weird triangular section of land encompassing part of a retail shopping center. I seriously doubt that the official city boundaries of Sugar Land were so changed. Unless I get a valid data source this will be reverted soon, as many of your past edits have already been.

Also, once again, this changeset comment is absolutely NOT useful when it comes to describing what you actually did. In fact, in this case, it's downright fraudulent. Any changeset comment devoid of useful commentary in greater Houston, particularly in Sugar Land, Greenway Plaza, and the other areas you have been editing, is a huge red flag that says "suspicious changeset, please investigate".

I take the quality of the data in OpenStreetMap seriously and I don't think I'm asking a whole lot for others to at least try to do the same.

Some of these are arguably not "minor changes". Either way, this changeset comment is not helpful and in fact is almost as suspicious as gibberish or no comment at all.

A well written changeset comment would be something like "Edit road classifications; add destinations; add brand, Wikidata, and Wikipedia tags; add car wash" and continue on describing the other edits.

Hi,

In the future please use more informative changeset comments such as "Added roads in new subdivision". A comment like "For the greater good" isn't very helpful; I would like to think that all OSM edits are "for the greater good".

Hi,

In the future, when the building is demolished/torn down, please note this in your changeset comments. It is an unfortunately common new mapper error to just delete the building when a business closes down but the building is still standing.

Source should include Bing imagery

Hi,

Please do not put underscores in the value of opening_hours. These should be spaces.

In the future, please separate changes by country. The change in Katy, Texas, US, should not be in the same changeset with changes in Europe.

Really, the changes for Washington state and Puerto Rico should be split as well. It is acceptable to submit changesets with only one edit and in this case, highly preferred.

(and get rid of rubbish nonstandard tag)

And note/2223720 as well

Oops, Reno, not Carson City