Please use proper changeset description and stop messing around with the boundaries.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184494814

Just in case you want to redirect the westbound traffic to I696 East lane, please use the eastbound lane and use oneway=-1 and of course add proper connections to the rest of the road network. Though not sure that's worth the effort.

Hey Carlos,
I reverted your geometry change of I696 and added all current ramp closures. Please keep the geometry, as the road will remain in it's position after the construction is done. Thanks for your understanding.

Casteo, please create smaller changesets and give a proper description of what you changed for which reason. Road is under construction, when you change a road to highway- construction.

Do not span your edits that large and just call the change "fix". Half of your edit again is not helpful and of low quality.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183123323

Hey Casteo, welcome to OSM! Please take a little more care while editing the map. In your recent changesets you changed residential roads to secondaries, added separate turn lanes which do not exist in real life. As well please always use a changeset comment describing your edits.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183079571

So you have been at the mentioned location and noticed significant traffic?

To be honest, I highly doubt that, as your profile mentioned you are from Colorado, but somehow you seems to know better about the traffic than a local. Can you share your sources which make you think that "crossing" has significant amount of traffic?

Hello Casteo and welcome to OSM. I stumbled across your edit, as a place=city in OSM is a settlement with population of 20000+ which seems far of for the area you added. Further I can't find anything while searching for Mettersfield. Can you provide any sources about what Mettersfield might be?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182901931

Hey VLD319,
before you add crossings, especially on driveways, please make sure those actually qualify as crossing. For example at node/6735527900 were you just added a crossing the sidewalk just continues like on a normal driveway.

Hey Paul,
please be more careful when "blindly solving" issues. On current aerials it's quite obvious that you fix just shuts off the QC-tool but not fix the actual problem of the road-layout.

Either put in the effort to fix the issue properly or revert your changes, so it still shows up in QC-tools as issue.

@VJMK
No, the type=multipolygone was set in this changeset.

That node was deleted in the very early phase of OSM where also anonymous user could edit the database. It might be possible that those data could be deleted in version 1. You might need to ask admins for more details.

Please do not move nodes half way around the globe and create a new node instead.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181856391

leisure=resort requires an accommodation provision. I can't find any source supporting that. Please share your source.

If it wasn't a bot edit, how did you made sure that each object you changed is actually a leisure=resort? E.g. node/6782247328 doesn't look like one.

Hey GeoMasker,
any reason for removing the crossing:signals tags?
It's appreciated you work on fixing complex intersections, but please don't delete correct data from OSM.

On 13 Mile / Woodward Ave you added traffic islands on the footway. Which is in deed correct, but as a result, now the road is crossing the footway in the traffic island. That's definitely not the case. Please either split the road to get the crossing geometry straight or get revert your traffic island to match the level of detail of the road. Both level of details need to match. Otherwise the data itself is useless.

and btw. it's duplicate tagging to add crossing=unmarked to an existing crossing:markings=no

Hey,
I noticed you changed a couple of crossings in that area. Please pay attention to only add crossings, if it is actually a crossing and not just a driveway. Usually you can identify actual crossings by kerbs or something similar.
A good question to ask yourself: Does a ped need to pay any attention?

Hey PowerMapper77,
I assume the data you added with this (and the once for the other states) was an import and you haven't reviewed them one by one? If so, such imports need to follow the Import Guidelines: osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Did you started the required discussion ahead of your import? If not, I suggest to start such kind of discussion as soon as possible and stop any further imports.

I believe most of the "names" you added in name might be not actual names, but rather the operator?

Was this automated edit somewhere discussed?

Was this automated edit somewhere discussed?