The following changesets damaged a set of roads between Southfield Road and Greenfield Road after somehow getting connected up with a large soccer field spanning miles. I think it would be best to revert these changesets fully and would propose doing them in JOSM.
121584620
121584223
121583859

The following changesets damaged a set of roads between Southfield Road and Greenfield Road after somehow getting connected up with a large soccer field spanning miles. I think it would be best to revert these changesets fully and would propose doing them in JOSM.
121584620
121584223
121583859

The following changesets damaged a set of roads between Southfield Road and Greenfield Road after somehow getting connected up with a large soccer field spanning miles. I think it would be best to revert these changesets fully and would propose doing them in JOSM.
121584620
121584223
121583859

That looks like a bad type ahead match on what should have been layer=1. It's a bridge. I fixed it.

Thanks for the response. I have removed the proposed road.

East Mountain Road shows up as a proposed road in Flat Rock, Michigan, but all the Tiger data is for Somerset, New Jersey. Is this in the correct spot? Should it be removed?

In terms of tags, I had attempted to be diligent in copying tags from either the parking node or the service road. If I missed some, that was unintentional.

I have not added any parking areas that were not paved and lined accordingly. I have avoided adding any informal parking and am looking at removing one area that looks like it could be that way. There is not an uninterrupted lane edge marker on that one.

The service roads are non-existent in the majority of cases. There is no separation between the road and the parking area. You park there, you do not drive there. You have immediate access to the parking from the main road.

I am not knowledgeable enough about routers and why they cannot route to a parking area attached to the road as that is a common situation. That would mean creating roads where they do not really exist.

I would argue that it is not tagging for the renderer. The convention previously, acknowledging that it contradicts the wiki, was leisure=park. This is what the renderers supported. They do not support what was done. There have been other convention changes in the past around waterways that left the old convention in place until renderers were updated to support the change. Otherwise important features disappear from the map. I don't think effectively deleting state parks from the map is a good thing.

It was tagged as leisure=nature_reserve, not a landuse. The city does not own this. The city does not recognize it as a nature reserve on any map. it is not signed as a nature reserve. The only signage is saying authorized personnel only. Tagging it as a nature_reserve implies something that it isn't.

Unfortunately these changes effectively delete the state parks from OpenStreetMap.org, no name, no boundaries despite the implication of the tag.

Should this be tagged as a nature reserve? The City of Novi does not recognize it as a park or reserve. The land is owned by MDOT. The one entrance to the property is posted as authorized personnel only.

Consider using natural=wood as well as natural for other tags in this area for describing how it looks or what the landcover is. Landuse is for how it is used, in this case "Managed forest or woodland plantation".

Is there a source for the names of these ponds along with the other named features in this area?

That would be correct. Every once in a while that happens about not getting the next update description typed in JOSM.

All of the imagery seems to be about the same vintage, somewhat recent but not enough to have the completed rotary. I tended to prefer the alignment on Mapbox and Bing.

No problem here.

No problem as well. I also was not sure if and what to change the tagging on the roundabout to as there were a variety of highways going into it.

I left all the tagging alone. I just focused on correcting the geometry. The bypass itself was involved in a relation I did not want to deal with.

This appears to be a residential area and not a park. I have mapped every park that Westland has publicized. It would appear that this should be removed unless there is a some reason to keep or change it, .e.g., into a landuse=residential.