US National Bridge Inventory

at https://geodata.bts.gov/datasets/national-bridge-inventory/about
(and older versions of this set)

Every bridge has "year build" data (just needs to be interpreted properly/plausibly)

They were probably mountaintop removal quarries in the past, but I am pretty sure that they are now landfill/dumping ground for rock/dirt/excavated material.
(On Bing) It looks like they are piling up material everywhere or did at some point, but not like they are still digging for material. On the south/southwest on these areas are two very large dams. The material is likely from underground mines in the area.
Compare e.g. with an active quarry osm.org/edit?#map=13/37.77786/-81.61654
I think there is a noticeable difference

Maybe there are also better tags such as was:quarry+natural=scree/scrub or something, i don't think it is a quarry. But no strong feelings either way.

Looks good, especially the street lamps!

Thanks, there isnt like "the" source, there are a lot of different sources I use occasionally for different things.
Underground lines -the ones I see & map- are usually visible by combinations of scars from construction activity, small switching boxes visible besides roads, line transition poles, older aerial images where the line was still overground etc.
The voltages are usually from company documents/system operator/system planning documents on the web, FERC elibrary, EIA generator interconnection data, public utility commission documents, etc

relation/18673593

This was 4 years ago, one of my first edits, I have no idea what exactly happened there.

I re-added the lake, is there anything else missing?

I replied at the thread

Do you mean the "voltage=115000;13860" tags on substations? They are from FERC Form 1 annual reports -elibrary.ferc.gov-, which include listings of operated substations+associated data, such as primary and secondary voltage, see https://data.catalyst.coop/ferc1_xbrl/substations_426_instant/158598 https://data.catalyst.coop/ferc1_xbrl/substations_426_instant/1903 https://data.catalyst.coop/ferc1_xbrl/substations_426_instant/1779
three substations which I added here with 13.86kV as the listed "secondary voltage".

Disclaimer I have no electrical background.

Hello, I am not quite sure where I got the name from, but I assume it is named like the city and I made a typo there. I changed it to "Cincinnati".

(Just for clarity, the changeset comment refers to the "Mid-Valley Pipeline", which I mapped along with various other details along the way (relation/16195373))

Hello, those are from the US Federal Railroad Administration's "Safety Map" at https://fragis.fra.dot.gov/gisfrasafety/

(Those codes are also posted at every crossing on a little blue sign under the crossbuck, verify using StreetView; also there are many crossings where I tagged this code into name=*/ref=*, these should be moved to "ref:fra_crossing=*")

Where exactly have you discussed this mass edit?

Hello, you changed substation=transmission to =distribution on various substations.
Many of these substations are 230/69kV, and 69KV is transmission system.
substation=distribution is for substations feeding the distribution grid, which is not the case with substations like way/171484619

See also substation=distribution?uselang=en

fixing my own tagging to something more accurate

no idea how that happened, but thanks for fixing!

thanks for your info, I throught because they were rebuilt to be almost fully grade seperated, motorway would be fine, but good to know.

If you use these circles to create more accurate mapping, there is no issue with doing that, just make sure you don't tag those circles with tags that imply things that aren't there like "man_made=pipeline", use tags like "note=temporary mapping help" or similar, and remove them when you finished mapping the alignment.

I removed the buildings added.

If thats now actually an improvement is debatable.

" removing way tags such as from nodes
You claim to to this in this edit. This is untrue."
You're long enough here to know that an JOSM CS with exactly 10,000 changed objects actually consists of multiple changesets, because 10k is the max amount of objects you can upload in one CS.
I don't remember this that exactly, but I have removed bad tags of this import from probably around 100k objects, so there are at least 10 similar changesets.

Random example CS of this series where 10k nodes were cleaned is changeset/144462938

"> discussion of automated edit?
ask this user tuxachanie who did the import

I did, received no answer and reverted their import."
So you did an automated mass edit too - by deleting everything. Where exactly have you discussed that mass edit then?

"imports that make thing worse"
explain: what exactly have I "made worse" by removing clearly false tags?
And how is that different from you removing the data alltogether?

so now im getting blocked because I forgot to reply to one random comment? why haven't you tried to write another comment a week or so later or send a private message as a reminder to this discussion???

discussion of automated edit?
ask this user tuxachanie who did the import, I only came across this and fixed some very obvious tagging issues such as
- removing way tags such as railway=abandoned from nodes
- removing obvious tagging mistakes such as "title=*" instead of name

We're seriously at a point where OTHER people make apparently undiscussed mass edits/imports, I do some rough cleanup, and then I get BLOCKED for doing so?? ..... this level of disrespect is unbelievable

No way to fix incorrect features???
Assuming you have a TIGER imported road, 20 miles long between two towns, but with very rough/therefore incorrect aligment. You are going to adjust the geometry of the low quality nodes instead of deleting the entire 20 mile road.
And that's called "fixing".

If railway=abandoned ways are glued to other features like roads or boundaries, yes, this is incorrect mapping practice and should be fixed - by ungluing, and not just deleting.

DWG said one sentence: "don't map nonexisting features", and I generally agree with that, but again, we're talking about clearly existing features.

If you are unwilling to discuss controversial changes, then don't do them in the first place, and if you do but don't discuss anything, they will get reverted. So please engage with the changesets where I commented.