Obvious aerial paths don't seem to be sufficient if ballast or other elements of the infrastructure are present on the ground per my reading of It may be worth capturing photos of the area as if the ballast isn't present then you could point to osm.wiki/Demolished_Railway "What is sufficient to map a former railway"

What was this revert based upon? This is the body of water which GNIS coordinates intersect and is the name as it appears on the USGS Topographical layer.

The name change wasn't a spam edit since it wasn't intentional, but it was an error. I'm not quite sure how that object was even changed by my adding the campground so far away. Thanks for fixing this!

There is a work around for OSIP where the access is blocked geographically https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/issues/1858#issuecomment-1628291713 and the work around notes from a OSM US slack discussion was added to osm.wiki/Ohio#Proxy_for_Geo-restricted_Aerial_Imagery . Additionally for Washington County, Ohio as of Aug 11 2023 I've acquired higher resolution imagery and am working to get it hosted by the OSMF.

When I viewed the Maxar imagery (before they removed imagery access) the buildings didn't quite match the shape from what I could see on my monitors.

I didn't find the shapes to be reasonable approximations based on the available imagery, but not to worry. After I get hosting for the 3 inch imagery from 2022, I'm planing to create a mapping challenge in the task manager to review all parts of Washington County, Ohio which should put to rest any issues with buildings. Even buildings I've traced on the OSIP III 6 inch will need adjustment at this resolution.

Thank you for flagging that, I updated per streetside photo. Unclear if prarie or private, but no "lane" on sign though the road is private per sign attached to the stopsign -> changeset/139136358

The preferred imagery in Ohio is OSIP 6 inch as it provides a better alignment and often better resolution. For instance - way/1177322550 and way/1177322538 don't match the building shape nor orientation. There is a lot of cleanup for this changeset to meet the quality of the nearby areas.

Hey, I was on my honeymoon and not reading emails, nor receiving any notifications which comments like this are not presented in the UI of any editor I use. So I don't have any indication except email that a comment was made for me to respond and those are filtered out for me to check when not busy with other things. That is why there was a delay.

Yes, the Plastic numbers refer to the resin type accepted. The numbers are what are posted, converting to name is a cognitive load I didn't apply and I think it may have been a suggested response at that time in ID IDK. There needs to be an equivalency for the values so users don't have to remember what number corresponds to the value and/or conversion. Its been too long for me to recall why they were entered that way, but they can be fixed and/or standardized.

This changeset seems to create a lot of untagged nodes duplicating nodes for the ways existing nodes, way/929206069 and way/1061511800 respectively. Was there a reason for this or was this unintentional?

These look to be protected areas not hunting stands.

I believe these are tagged incorrectly, hunting_stand tag should be for a single stand, but these appear to be State of Ohio Wildlife areas and would be better suited following the US Public Lands tagging osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands#State_Public_Lands

Many of the buildings and driveways added were not well aligned with the imagery or shaped even while using OSIP III. Try using the square shortcut "Q" key to help with building shapes.

When zooming in and out the drawn shape would stop showing the lines or nodes of areas that had yet been assigned a type. Thus the change set showed "area" which I clicked to view, but ID integrated with task manager would zoom to a location, but no "area" would be displayed associated with the warning before submitting.

Thanks for marking the bridge as closed, but access = no for all should be sufficient. Switching the road to barrier doesn't make sense, but putting a construction area around the bridge and barriers on the way would make more sense. The construction area allow for a stated end and last checked to ensure the feature is clear as to why it is closed and enable checking if the state changed or known end time is past. See modifications I made in changeset/128861014

Please make sure when adding roads that intersect with water to set tunnel, bridge, etc instead of linking the water and road via a node.

Where did the name "Community Commons" come from for the park? The city website states the park is named Partners Park - https://marysvilleohio.org/Facilities/Facility/Details/Partners-Park-21 is it a local name or does a sign on site state this?

Finished extending to Houghton Lake

I think I got distracted, the relation should extend further North toward Big Rapids, thanks for catching this.

Hi, where did the name "Old Canal" come from? Does it apply to the entire shape or just the skinny part? The larger section according to the USGS Topo layer and GNIS coord for the body of water should be - Mudport Basin - https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/1057861 Should 529100482 be split to the canal and the basin?

In summary - It probably should updated to "Le Fevre Lake" to be more consistent with Michigan DNR and closer to USGS topo.

Its quite possible that "Le Ferre Lake" "Le Fevre Lake" are name variants or misreading of the lake name. USGS GNIS states the spelling as "Le Ferre", and I was using GNIS as a second pass while linking to Wikidata. USGS national map layer shows the "Le Ferre" spelling captured in GNIS as of April 13, 1980 (though I've found errors in GNIS's import from maps and written records at times and reported for verification and correction.) No name variant is currently shown, but I'm not sure if the name variants are in the national map entry. I would guess LeFevre Lake, Le Ferre Lake, and Le Fevre are name variants from different times or maps. See current entry for the national map with "Le Ferre Lake": https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/630236 and Michigan DNR uses the "Le Fevre Lake" spelling - https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79119_79146_81198_85509_105929-67578--,00.html
I do confirm that the USGS Topo Layer displays "LeFevre Lake". Not sure what on the ground signs say at this time. The on the ground sign would be the best source, but these others are not without merit.

As for other "Le Ferre Lake" in Kalamazoo County references online, I found many, but I suspect they are derived from the GNIS entry for 630236 and are not reliable sources for a check as I've seen propagation of GNIS fixes sometimes appear in similar contexts.(https://usa.fishermap.org/depth-map/le-ferre-lake-mi/ - http://www.michiganlakes.com/counties/michigan-lakes-by-county/kalamazoo/le-fevre-lake.html - https://lakeplace.com/lakefinder/mi/kalamazoo/le-ferre/39-232)