Hello, I'm reverting this changeset for the following reason:

None of the copy-pasted buildings exist as copy-pasted. Including the address information.

Please don't change highways from residential, unclassified, tertiary, secondary, primary, trunk, or motorway to paths.
This changeset has (largely) been reverted.

As an FYI, the buildings that you changed from `building=house` to `building=yes` were, in fact, houses.

Also, just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade

Thanks for removing the service road (it looks like it was supposed to be a driveway or something though).

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite". Unfortunately, the previous year that covers this area of the county is kind of bad in this location. (IIRC, it was for the National Agriculture Imagery Program.)

JOSM also has access to the 2019 (County wide) and 2020 (Grand Valley) aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade

I'm not seeing way/935144662 as a residential road in the most recent aerial imagery from the county (2020). Did you intend to mark it as residential, or was it supposed to be a track?

Also, just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade

They have roads here now?
I'll add the addresses then.

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade

I *really* hope you weren't using Bing for alignment. *Really, really, hope.*

If you've got the imagery_db_offset plugin installed, I've added some offsets for some survey markers for the Mesa County Imagery, and I also did some aligning of other layers, like Bing.

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap.

JOSM has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Just out of curiosity, why did you slightly move an address node?

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade

That is fair. TBH, I was just doing a preset search in JOSM for "Communication tower", and that is what it pulled up.

Looking at the wiki, it does look like that should have been a mast instead of a tower (due to height).

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Also, can you be more specific on what you are trying to correct? All of your changesets thus far have one word descriptions, so it is kind of difficult to know what you were correcting (position? business information? what?). This is especially important when removing data.

Anyway, thank you for your contributions,
vorpalblade

P.S. I assume you are the business owner of Kodiaxe. Thanks for being interested in OpenStreetMap. :)

If you want to make the layer available to others, you can either get it added to the Esri service or you can make a pull request for https://gitlab.com/gokaart/JOSM_MapWithAI/-/blob/pages/public/json/sources.json .

It isn't really off-label (I do something similar with addresses in my home country, except I'm running a conflation server).

I do assume that you have appropriate permissions to do the import (MassGIS), so this is technically a supported use case, just not a supported work flow.

A few notes on your workflow:
* If you have the ways you want to add to OSM selected, please use `shift+a` (default keybinding, action is under `Data` -> `MapWithAI` -> `Add selected data`). This removes some tags that are added by the plugin to track sources to put in the changeset source tag when the source tag is obtained from layers (in this case, `mapwithai:source` is used), or other known conflation tags (e.g., `dupe`, `conn`). If this is broken for your use case, I'd be more than happy to take a look.
* The layer merge workflow _was_ deliberately removed in order to avoid accidental pollution of OSM data (again, `dupe`, `conn`, and `mapwithai:source` tags). I'm sorry it broke your workflow though.

During the work week, I am active on Slack as well (`vorpalblade-kaart`), but otherwise, I can be reached on IRC as `vorpalblade77`/`vorpalblade77-kaart`.

Thanks for using the plugin. :)

As an FYI, these solar panels no longer exist (I was surprised when I saw that, but what can you do?).

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thank you for your contributions,
vorpalblade

Note:
I've just changed it back in changeset/97997557 -- if I get around to making a discussion on the tagging list, it will be easier to do a mass change (and I won't forget about it )

Fair enough.

For my validation purposes, I typically use both TagInfo and WikiData (this is mostly so I can avoid flagging newly created tags that are well documented, and also take automatic advantage of value validation regexes).

Anyway, I've updated the Wiki Data pages for `shop=mobile_home` ( osm.wiki/Item:Q16260 ) and `shop=motorhome` ( osm.wiki/Item:Q16192 ). I *think* the current wiki pages (non-data item) are good enough for clearing up misconceptions, but (a) I've changed quite a few buildings in the area from `building=house` to `building=static_caravan` (those are from a poorly done import in 2015), and (b) I've actually visited this location (I was looking at possibly getting a modular home at the time), so (c), someone else might get confused. Especially since I was initially confused (`mobile_home` probably should have been `manufactured_home` or something). The tag isn't used enough for it to be a major breaking change if we change it to something sensible.

I don't know about making a key page for `Key:mobile_home`, as I don't know if there are any non-prefixed tags for that.

OK. Then why did you change `shop=mobile_home` to `shop=motorhome` (both tag pages were created by Fizzie41), if `shop=mobile_home` is part of the discussed/accepted tagging schemes?

Just in case there is a language barrier (UK English -> US English and vice versa is bad enough), this location sells `building=static_caravan` and prefrabricated `building=house`. It does not sell vehicles.

In one of your later changesets, I made a comment about squaring items that should be square. I've done it for this building.

Thanks for your contribution,
vorpalblade