I've gone through the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News to remove "city" from the addr:city field.

Having local knowledge of these areas, neither the city names, nor the postal addresses within them include the "City" moniker. The state's data likely includes city due to the "independent city" nature of incorporated cities in the state of virginia whereby they are conferred the same importance/classification as a county.

PS thanks for the cleanup of the building shapes leftover from the building imports in the area.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133425521

Just a small point: addresses in Portsmouth should be addr:city = Portsmouth, not "Portsmouth City" This can be seen on the new buildings added around osm.org/way/1152579274
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133425521

I'm sorry, but this was never a building.

Its tags already include the was: and removed: lifecycle prefixes to denote it is no longer there.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132730944

Hello, I noticed your mapping around Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, I'm curious why you removed amenity: hospital and healthcare: hospital from the medical center?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133288060

Hi, I noticed your tagging around the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, always good to have folks improving the map.

You mapped a road passing under an elevated walkway as layer=-1. Negative layer values are only appropriate for features below regular ground level.

a ground level road that crosses under a building part should be tagged either covered:yes or the building part should be tagged as level 1(or higher)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133287027

I am reverting this changeset, low quality data.

Taxiways that have "x" on aerial imagery and on FAA airport diagrams should not be marked as active taxiways.

This is but one of numerous data quality issues with this changeset and reason for revert.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120898643

Hi, Noticed some changes you added to airports at the old Pungo Coast Guard radio station: osm.org/way/417996332

Historic runways that are no longer maintained should not have the aeroway=runway tag applied.

see the Lifecycle section of the aeroway=runway wiki article:
osm.wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Drunway#Lifecycle

Welcome to the OSM project and happy mapping

The smaller area was drawn by hand from aerial imagery. showing the land that is disturbed from natural condition for the operation of the landfill. The larger area is likely the parcel bounds of the property, It could probably be argued either method is correct but they do appear to be duplicates.

why have you removed the relations for wetland areas? these help in organizing like-areas
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109935243

There currently is no good way to reflect the situation where there is a permanent water level and then a larger portion that is intermittent. So we can either do as i have done here and map them as two water bodies, OR we can map it as one larger intermittent water body. I still prefer my method (which I consulted with @ZeLonewolf before implementing). I guess another option would be to have a super-relation but that seems overkill and not a really good way to handle it.

In the end we may just have a difference of opinion on how best to map features like these.

restored in changeset: www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107321430

I am reverting this changeset as the concerns that led to this reversion have been addressed in comment on changeset: www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103117490

As you rightly pointed out I did not adequately list the source imagery for this changeset. It appears on review that the two imagerysets used were bing (for the full water level) and Virginia Imagery Service - Most Recent (for the low water level).

This feature is a holding basin for treated water from the Franklin pulp plant (I think currently owned by International Paper Co.)

The is treated and pumped here from their operations in Franklin, VA. Water accumulates until the winter when it is released into the Blackwater river not far from the Chowan junction. The reason it's held is it is extremely poor in oxygen and they wait until winter when dissolved oxygen is naturally higher in the rivers and it will have less ecological impact downstream.

I am reverting your deletion as I feel my original changeset more acurately reflects the reality on the ground. And I hope I have sufficiently answered your concerns.

Hi, I noticed you did a lot of changes in a large geographic area. In the future would it be possible to break these up into smaller changesets.

Also it seems you've removed leisure park from several relations that appear to be parks, is there a reason for this?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104389816

Hi Omri,
The short answer is that 206660 and 1633328 were duplicate relations as they both described the same thing-- the Independent City of Fredericksburg (more on this later) and I did not create a new relation (1633328) It was already existing.

The long version is that Virginia has a weird way of dealing with "Cities" in the law. For all legal purposes they are a combined County and City (admin_level=6) in OSM boundary terms. In many places in the state they had been mapped as duplicated relations, one for admin_level=6 which is normally for county, and one for admin_level=8 which is for incorporated towns & cities. Duplicating them is incorrect in terms of OSM. -- One feature per item. The more correct practice is to map Independent cities as a boundary relation with boundary=administrative, admin_level=6, place=city and optionally border_type=city. Also if a city lies totally within the bounds of a surrounding county its borders should be added to the county's relation with role of inner.

If you have further questions regarding this changeset or others feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer.

Awesome changesets, please consider making your comments a little more descriptive, it gives a little more context with what might have been changed when scanning through changes to the map. Keep up the great work!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98078376

This is inappropriate language for a changeset comment. Please do not weaponize the OSM data.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97840522

doh!, didn't realize I uploaded that
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91145628

awesome fix. Question for you though, Why put zip_code on a street? it would seem that postal codes are properties of addresses not the streets (rural areas can be one zip on one side and another zip on the other)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91115049

re: authoritative answers... there aren't really any, the following page summarizes some of the vagaries in the current system.
osm.wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

I am by no means an absolute authority on the matter. My advice was more to steer you towards "mapping what is on the ground" rather than attempting to "map for the renderer"—Komoot in this case.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90209315