Hi,
Thanks for adding the building!
I went ahead and improved the shape to better reflect the reality.

Cheers

Hi,
All seems good. The only thing I found is that I am not sure if the high voltage and low voltage lines share this pole:
node/12540831434

Hi,
This looks like a quite dramatic reclassification. Would you mind contacting jnighan (@jnighan) so the both of you could sort out if this is in line with the highway classification guideline?

osm.wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification

Easiest way to map the crane seems to be to draw a single area encompassing all the rail for moving and tagging:
abandoned:man_made=crane
crane:type=gantry_crane
crane:mobile=rail

For the proving grounds, I would only draw area around actual visible remains of objects. And tag perhaps with historic=military.

It's fine if you don't have time for micro-mapping of cuttings and embarkments, but there should not be ways tagged as abandoned railway. The railway is simply not there any more.

Hi Ktr101, I agree with all the complaints here. Parking lot is not a historic ruin, crane is not a railway, embarkments and cuttings are also not a railway.
IMO the solution should be to revert this changeset and the features that are still present should be then mapped correctly.

man_made=embankment

osm.wiki/Tag%3Aman_made%3Dcutting

man_made=crane

Hey,
I think that looks all good. I also changed the road to service, because it seemed to me that the building at the end of it is not a family house.

Nice. Thanks for the info!

Hi,
are these sections newly built?
way/1361840455
way/1361840456

They don't show on imagery from 2023.

Hi and welcome to OSM!
Perhaps you could draw that part as an area along it's true boundaries instead of placing there just a node.
Also there is dedicated tag for that leisure=dog_park that specify that this is a park for dogs.
You can even add some restrictions about the dogs weight or age. See here for more details: leisure=dog_park

Nice job, thanks for adding the sanctuary!
Per OSM definition it is not considered park, but a nature reserve. I went ahead and updated the tag.

Cheers

Hi,
I asked you multiple times in the past to follow our rules of editing and now again you choose to ignore them.

1) You created overlaps between fairway and green polygons,
2) you deleted and redraw objects, instead of editing their shape
3)You damaged residential landuse area

Please follow roles on our wiki including:
leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Hey! I think all looks great and I don't see any issues. Really a nice job!

If it helps you, you can switch to a better resolution aerial imagery. When Editing, press "B" and select "CT ECO Orthoimagery (2019)".

Cheers

Ok let's put it then into description field.

Hello,
does this pond have an actual name? We don't put descriptive names into name field.

Hello and welcome to OSM!

Per our definition this in indeed a nature reserve and not a park. Park are in urban areas with managed vegetation.

More info here: leisure=park

Hi and thanks contributing to OSM!

A few tips, you can search for information on how to map things on our wiki. For example barriers are here: barrier=* Or you can always ask on Slack/Discord or Community forum.

Also "Name" field tag is reserved for an actual name. Descriptive names like "Entrance Road to ..." should not go there. Sorry I had to remove it.

Cheers,
Martin

Hi Joseph,
sorry, I know that this feels frustrating, but it is certainly not about all edits to OSM. Road network is a bit of a special case. Not so long ago the road classification in US was a mess until quite long discussion and difficult agreement happened. Jnighan was part of that discussion for CT and put a lot of work in creating classification system that seems to work.

Now if people start doing tiny changes to what they personally perceive as not correct and then another group of people change half of that to something else because they have a different opinion and so on, then we end up again with a mess.

Therefore I think for this particular case it is good to discuss what the problem with the current classification is, how does the proposed change fixes that, and then also apply it consistently all cross the state.

Before I asked you to contact jnighan or start some discussion about it. Have you tried and what was the outcome?
changeset/157603271
I think he was still active on Slack.

Cheers

@brendan77
Thanks for pointing out the mistakes. Could you perhaps go through the original changeset of jnighan again and list all the changes that you identified as wrong?

This way we could think of an approach that would bring back the good edits while avoiding repeating edits that are clearly wrong.

Hi and welcome to OSM!
Thanks for editing, but unfortunately in one case you converted a while residential road into a gate. And in another case you created a duplicate road on top of existing road.
(I went ahead and fixed those issues)

If part of a road needs to get distinct information then you can select one of its nodes, right clicking on it and then selecting 'split'.

I suggest completing the Walkthough in the help section.

Also as a side note. Making road private acces is only possible when there is a gate or no trespassing sign.

Cheers

Hi Brendan,
can you be more specific. which still existing buildings got deleted?
I mostly see that information about churches got conflated onto building outlines and only a handfull of church POIs got deleted without replacement.