Why did you feel the need to add untagged lines separating the individual parking spaces here? They don't add any information to the map.

Hello, When making drain pipes could you please use waterway=drain + tunnel = culvert instead of man_made=pipeline + substance = drain? I don't feel that culverts and storm drains fall under the generally accepted usage of man_made=pipeline.

I tried fixing it myself just now, but feel free to revert anything you think needs reverting

Acknowledged. I've been working to improve my practices as a mapper over the course of the year, and I'll admit that the quality in some of my older changesets might be lacking

I understand, but OSM data is used for many different purposes, so it is in everyone's best interest if its as accurate as possible. Tagging features incorrectly for the sake of convenience is bad practice.

Hello,
Why have you mapped features such as rough, etc. as water hazards?

Understood, I have removed the tag

The question mark is a typo, pay it no mind.

I usually make sure to add the new way to all the necessary route relations, yes. I guess I must’ve missed a few.

I extended one along Connecticut Avenue all the way from Kensington to the Purple line bridge, and added some more in the homewood neighborhood. All of these are visible in your link.

please don't map things which haven't actually been built yet

I see. For whatever reason, the iD editor doesn’t accept these and other features without “highway” tags (like parking lots and piers) as routable by default. This is something I will keep in mind when making future edits.

I suppose you can roll it back if you must, but how would you suggest rail platforms be tagged to reflect their walkability? Would individual access tags perhaps be more appropriate? Or maybe highway=pedestrian as opposed to highway=footway?

I linked up some loose driveway ends with the main road- nothing major. It’s probably safe to override any changes I made with your own.

The source I was using gave different hours than from what was already listed, so I presumed they had changed. In hindsight, this might not have been a smart choice.

Since you felt the need to remove the tags, I will leave the parking spaces alone and ignore the iD editor's complaining.

I suppose it is redundant, yes. However, the iD editor seems to think otherwise, and the hundreds of warnings it spits out wherever someone has decided to tag individual parking spaces bothers me too much to just ignore.

To clarify, I deleted clones of points classified as “addresses.” I have not been deleting address information from any existing features.

I am aware the addresses are real-the points I deleted were duplicates (there were two identical address points for 7C and two identical address points for 7D)

I apologize, that was careless of me. Thank you for fixing what I broke.