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

Thanks for this. I just checked and none of the new roads are in current aerial imagery. :(

Anyway, I've added the addresses.

Thank you for using a fairly recent aerial imagery for your edits.

Another editor (JOSM) has access to 2019 and 2020 aerial imagery as well, but the learning curve is a bit steeper. The newer aerial imagery isn't available in iD (the editor you used) for technical reasons.

Anyway, your edit looks pretty good. About the only comment I have (right now) is that you should probably square up items that are supposed to be squarish. In iD, I believe the keyboard shortcut is `q`. All it does is make all the angles 90 degrees (although I _think_ it may also do 45 degrees).

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

Just to clarify, shop=mobile_home indicates that `shop=mobile_home` is for "[a] place that primarily sells mobile- or manufactured-homes, which are intended to be permanently, or semi-permanently, located in one spot."

You changed this to `shop=motorhome`, which is a little-used tag. And poorly documented (mostly as a redirect to `shop=caravan`).

I'm going to change this back in a few days, absent a better comment than "mobile_home -> motorhome".

Thanks,
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".

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

Thank you for asking for a review.

Feedback:
* You duplicated Whitman Park. The pre-existing park area had some additional information. I removed your version.
* You changed some buildings from `building=commercial` to `building=yes`. `building=commercial` is more specific, and should be kept unless you know that the `building=commercial` is incorrect. I'll leave these for the next time I walk by them (I use StreetComplete on Android for this).
* You used Bing aerial imagery. Not necessarily an issue, but there is better aligned, newer, and clearer imagery in the area.

As an FYI, 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" (it doesn't look like you have ever used JOSM though -- your current edit is in "iD").

Thank you 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".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS" (it doesn't look like you have ever used JOSM though -- your current edit is in "iD").

Thank you 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".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS" (it doesn't look like you have ever used JOSM though -- your current edit is in "iD").

Thank you for your contributions,
vorpalblade

Thank you for your contribution to routing.

As an FYI, satellite imagery may be offset drastically, as it is in the case of Bing imagery. Most of the rest of the imagery providers are significantly better.

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" (it doesn't look like you have ever used JOSM though -- your current edit is in "iD").

Thank you 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.

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

Also, "deleted ways" is too generic of a changeset comment. You should explain what and why you made the change (e.g., "Removed water feature that does not exist from NHD import").

Thank you for your contributions,
vorpalblade

`asphalt` is accurate _most_ of the time. That being said, if you cannot tell more than "it's paved", then just use `paved` -- other applications, like StreetComplete, can point out roads that have generic surface types like `paved` and `unpaved` and ask for clarification, whereas if it is the more specific `asphalt`, it does not point out the road.

So, if a road _is_ paved, then `paved` is an improvement. If you can quickly determine that the road is paved with `asphalt` or `concrete` quickly, then that is also an improvement. What is not an improvement is tagging a surface paved with `concrete` as `asphalt`. (`asphalt` tends to be dark grey/black, while concrete tends to be white/light grey, but sometimes roads are dusty)

So, if your editing style is such that you do miss the odd road that is not `asphalt`, I would much prefer `paved`. Sure, it isn't as specific, but it is accurate.

Can you please not do mass modifications? Some of the roads that you "updated road surfaces" for are most likely `surface=concrete` instead of `surface=asphalt`. I will _specifically_ draw your attention to way/119334470.

Also, as an FYI, there is newer imagery available for Mesa County in JOSM (Mesa County GIS <descriptor> <year>), with years being 2019/2020. 2019 is the full county, 2020 is just the more densely populated areas.

Have a good evening,
vorpalblade

As an FYI, satellite imagery may be offset drastically, as it is in the case of Bing imagery. Most of the rest of the imagery providers are significantly better.

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" (it doesn't look like you have ever used JOSM though -- your current edit is in "iD").

Thank you for your contributions,
vorpalblade

I mad some modifications to the area (so I modified the generator shed and the house and the solar panels -- I added the appropriate tags so that most software would "know" what is actually there, replacing the notes that you had left).

It looks like the 2019 aerial imagery is new enough to show the house, but it is only available in JOSM at the moment (due to technical limitations of iD, which is what you were using to do the edits in this changeset).

I'm usually editing in the Grand Junction area (I'm currently working on some trailer parks).

Anyway, if you have any questions, feel free to message me.

Is the name of the shed actually Generator Shed (i.e., is there a sign?) or is it a description?

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" (it doesn't look like you have ever used JOSM though).

Thank you for your contributions,
vorpalblade

Thank you for the good changeset comment. It probably would have been a good idea to add some indication as to *why* you deleted the buildings in the changeset comment (e.g., "I deleted buildings that no longer exist due being razed for planned construction"). This helps future people know why you deleted many buildings. But newer aerial did verify the building deletion, so thank you.

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" (it doesn't look like you have ever used JOSM though).

Thank you for your contributions,
vorpalblade