Hi, can you clarify what source you're using for this information? In an uncertain environment, I think the last thing we want to do as OSM is to communicate that houses have been destroyed without firm evidence. I also don't think that name=Wildfire damage is exactly right, maybe destroyed:by= or something?

Bethesda is not a town boundary, it is a CDP. There probably should not be a border_type or place tag on this boundary TBH

No problem! I don't think it's particularly urgent

Hey thanks for importing these, great to have better bus stop coverage in DC! I did notice one thing about these nodes, however: it looks like you haven't added the typical PTv2 tagging, namely public_transport=platform + bus=yes. Was there a reason you skipped these? Beyond prompting a warning in iD for each node asking to add them, I think some renderers and transit analysis programs might use these tags rather than highway=bus_stop.

Huh, that random rectangle in the middle of a TV studio is a weird one. But looking at other official maps, like https://data.lacity.org/City-Infrastructure-Service-Requests/City-Boundary-of-Los-Angeles/ppge-zfr4, it seems real! I guess it's just one parcel that never got annexed for some reason, though I wasn't able to find any specific information about it anywhere. It should probably be an "inner" member of the Los Angeles city relation.

Thanks for the quick response, appreciate it! It seems like you've been adding a lot of good details to the map, so keep it up!

Hi, thanks for adding to the map in the area! I noticed you have created neighborhood boundaries for Sawtelle, Century City, and Westwood sourced from the LA Times's Mapping LA project.

While I appreciate the effort it probably took to draw these, I find the Mapping LA boundaries unsuitable for OSM and think they should be removed. These boundaries were essentially made up for the purposes of a newspaper project and have no official status. Moreover, these boundaries are copyrighted with a CC BY 4.0 license, which is incompatible with OSM without a waiver from the LA Times.

Anecdotally, I also tend to find the Mapping LA boundaries to be inaccurate, or at least oversimplified (as a former Sawtelle resident, I would not consider anything south of the 10 or east of the 405 to be Sawtelle, for instance). I don't think that LA has any well-defined neighborhood boundaries, so I've tended to map them as nodes near their centers, per place=neighbourhood#Node_or_area?. At the very least, any boundaries drawn should not be boundary=administrative, admin_level=9, because they are not administrative boundaries.

Also, I am changing Sawtelle back to place=suburb. Note that in OSM, "suburb" (place=suburb) just means a very large neighborhood within a city, not the US English definition of a separate outlying town. Sawtelle is definitely bigger than a place=neighbourhood.

That seems sensible. I'm not sure I agree with adding leisure=park as well though, which is meant for landscaped, city parks used for general recreation: leisure=park. Does Fairplex really match this description?

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Can you clarify what this line was for, or were you just testing things out? Please note that changesets immediately go live in the database, so you should only upload real-world information.

Best,
Will

Reverted in changeset/155036115

Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please note that your edits to the map are live on the database, so please do not upload tests that delete correct data. I am reverting your edit since I am fairly sure these features still exist.
Best,
Will

Makes sense, appreciate for the quick response!

Hi, please note that both the businesses you added here already exist in OSM, but tagged on the buildings: way/421944393, way/421666779. Please watch out for that in the future to avoid adding duplicate features. Perhaps Every Door doesn't display them well?

Best,
Will

Hi, appreciate you trying to fix up the CA route 2 relation here. I *think* in this change you've added "missing" sections of CA 2 between the 405 and West Hollywood/La Brea, is that right? If so, are you sure those segments are actually currently part of CA 2? I thought that those portions had been relinquished by the state and were no longer officially part of the route. That seems to be what's indicated in the official definition: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-shc/division-1/chapter-2/article-3/section-302/, and a very detailed local roadgeek page: https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE002.html. But let me know if you have some other source that says otherwise!

Best,
Will

Reverted in changeset/153768989

Reverted in changeset/153768682

Reverted in changeset/153768500

This edit added low quality names (unverifiable, sometimes already mapped, and not in title case) to various retail areas and made erroneous geometry changes, it's been reverted in changeset/153768424.

Please do not upload fake data to the database, even as a test! And then certainly don't leave it for hours.

Does this and the other former railways you've added recently actually exist in any physical way on the ground? This one appears to go straight along roads and through buildings, for example. You might want to take a look at the OpenHistoricalMap project (where this railway doesn't appear to have been mapped yet: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/#map=12/34.0020/-118.3890&layers=O&date=2005-07-13&daterange=1824-01-01,2024-12-31) than OpenStreetMap, which is a representation of the existing world.

Best,
Will