I have reverted this on behalf of several users here who have commented on some inaccuracies in the mapping.

I appreciate the efforts to contribute to OSM in this area Mar_r0. However, a bit more caution with well established tags is probably in order. I encourage you to join the various communities (ex: on the OSM US Slack instance or the global Discord server). They're good places to ask and learn from other mappers.

Yeah. This edit is much cleaner.

This is so much better. Thank you!!

When there's disagreement about the tagging, it seems good practice to leave the changes and not do any reverts until a resolution has been reached. Either by the two of you or in consultation with the broader community. Reverting without resolution just encourages more map fighting and edits. I don't think there's anything here that's damaging the use of the map such that a quick revert is necessary (if so that's another issue of course!).

Stumbled across this edit while doing other things. Great work!!

Stumbled across this changeset doing a quick edit in the area. Looks great! Good work.

Hello! Looks like a lot of great mapping here. I just wanted to let you know that my understanding is that way/1082812806/history#map=19/32.27293/-110.97341 should be tagged as landuse=residential and residential=trailer_park. My impression is tourism=caravan_site is more for temporary RV and trailer camper sites.

Anyhow, I've updated it but figured I'd give you a heads up.

Happy mapping!

You mistakenly marked on to the RV parks here (way/33007040/history) as admin_level=8. I've fixed it up easily I thought you may find this small edit error amusing.

Thanks for helping out. Let me know if you have any questions or if anything is unclear.

Happy mapping!

Hello! I noticed that this edit added a "maxspeed" tag to the Renton admin boundary (way/40491112/history#map=14/47.4598/-122.2473). I suspect it's a misclick and should be removed. Could you take a look and see if there's more things like this?

Sounds swell. I'll revert that portion and clean up any bonus nodes. I always like to ask in case I've missed something totally obvious!

If you have a particular interest in GNIS features (and their accuracy!) another user and I have been building scanners and hopefully a bunch of nice MapRoulette challenges in the near future.

One of the tasks in this challenge is how I stumbled upon your edit: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37614

Hello! Can you help me understand why you have removed the way for Yokuts basin? While the GNIS record only has the start point, the extant is clearly marked on USGA topo maps. Perhaps there's some other confusion.

Awesome. Good to know. I'm not sure why I didn't even search the Task Manager for AZ before making a thing but fortunately, it seems the projects are somewhat orthogonal.

Also good reminder for me to keep an eye on OSMI. I'm not sure we can get it completely happy all the time but it's always good to know we aren't leaving huge messes.

If we end up stepping on your work please let me know. It seems the 3 of us are mostly way way way out of the city at this point so there's low chance of immediate collision!

Hello! I've stood up an address addition project that may interest you. https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/377

I'm not local to AZ so would love any feedback you have. Some areas will already have been completed but there does appear to be a lot of work I'm excited to get through.

Anyhow, happy mapping either way!

A while ago GNIS decided there was a set of names they weren't going to track anymore. This appears to be in that set. We have a copy of the data file before the purge (combined with some good old fashioned data scraping) we're using for cleanup. I'm happy to post is somewhere if you'd like a copy.

Still haven't figured out what to do with the "dead" ids but given they're floating around still in wikidata etc, currently just trying to get everything matched up nicely.

Ah. I was referring to this: way/1058189200. It seems the GNIS national file drops the "Research" portion of the name for both areas. It appears the correct GNIS ID is 37518. I'll add it.

Another mapper and I are doing a bigger GNIS cleanup/tag fix etc. We haven't gotten far enough in our cleanup to have a strategy around the lifecycle stuff. "was:" is pretty interesting though, a solid suggestion.

I appreciate the quick response. Let me know if you have other questions or ideas!

Hello! Do you recall where you got the info for the gnis:feature_id tag on Santa Catalina Research Natural Area? It doesn't match anything in the GNIS database. I've removed it as part of cleanup but would love to know if that information should be in another tag.

Hello! Just wanted to let you know that the GNIS ID here is incorrect. It seems the confusion is that GNIS ID and GeoNames ID are different things... I can see how that's not clear at all. I've fixes this up with the correct ID but wanted to let you know in case there's other places this may have happened. Anyhow, happy mapping!

Hello!
My reading of the census:population tag is that is an older tag for the population of a place. This changeset seems to be using that tag for either the date of an estimated population or just marking the year you added the tag. I'm not sure which. My proposal is to move all of the census:population=2021 tags to be population:date tags (perhaps 2020 as that's when the last full census was.

I am happy to do this change if you think it's sensible. Definitely let me know what you think... It's totally possible I've misread things.

I gotcha. I appreciate the thoughtful reply for what it a non-recent change!

I've moved that info to the description= tag so it's still available. Let me know if you think another key is a better option.