Hi. Can you look back at the following ways and make corrections:

way/90758334

way/44708341

way/47246634

Hello Sedna,
I have removed a few of the sidewalks that you mapped in this change since they duplicate an existing path (the cycleway). If there is only one physical path there, there shouldn't be an additional way mapped. The original should be modified or enhanced if need be. There might be some additional cleanup needed in this area. Thanks.

You might want to find a GPS app or device that can take more samples per given time. When you have samples that are almost a half mile apart and you don't plot intermediate points, your track can be misleading and possibly even dangerous.

The other problem is that you are double plotting the same path. For example, you go up to the overlook and come back on what I can only assume is the same exact path. Since only a single path exists, it should only be mapped once, not twice.

Hello Juan. thanks for all of the contributions to OSM. The area is looking well mapped now. One thing you might want to be aware of is the difference between the name and description tags. It looks like you are using "name" when a description would be more appropriate. For instance, the bench "In treasured memories of ..." isn't really named that. There is just an inscription/plaque with that text. That information should be put in the description tag instead, not the name tag.

Thanks,
b-jazz

Not sure what you were trying to do with way/853443159, but it has no tags. Can you take a look?

Sorry, just getting back to this. Did you take a look at the way that you mapped (way/874953527)? There are three points in the track that wildly zigzag hundreds of feet out of the way of the rest of the trail. Those can't possibly be correct. Can you take a look and hand correct those to fit in with the rest of the trail. It's always a good idea to hand edit GPS tracks in case there are any signal abnormalities like this.

Yes, but this particular one looks to be a single family home.

Why aren't the tags for node/8618758800 just including on the surrounding building way? They appear to be from the same import and it doesn't make sense to have both the node and the way exist.

For the service road (way/918325433), since there existed another service road at that same location, a new one should not have been created as there is physically only one road there. Could you go back and clean up that duplication please? Thanks.

Nope, I'm not sure. This looked sus from the very first minute I came across it. I left a note on one of the changesets and didn't hear back so I thought it would be best to at least make the topology consistent and hope that someone else with local knowledge could come back and do proper removals. I will continue to map in this manner, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Hey there jmb70. Thanks for your improvements. I wanted to point out a small error that you can hopefully avoid in the future. When you were drawing cul-de-sacs, you were drawing the way as A-B-C-D-C, where you would double back to a previous point to end the way. (At least I think this might be you. Apologies if I'm not reading the history right.) When you end a way, you can just click the end node twice instead. If you don't you create this odd topology error where a road doubles back on itself. Thanks.

Oh, and I'm cleaning this up where I find them, so no need for you to find and correct these. I'm just hoping you can avoid this in the future.

Hello AMathews, thanks for your contributions to OSM. I couple of comments for you on this changeset. If is best practice to keep changesets limited to a small area and not include changes from two vastly different parts of the world. I'd be happy to explain way in more detail if you're interested. A second comment is that most editors these days have a way to "square" a building, so houses like way/912828031 will look much better if they are all at 90 degree angles.

Thanks.

I believe the Mapbox and Bing images are actually the latest in this case. Have a look and let me know if you still disagree.

Does way/910746394 really go through a building?

Is there a reason that two natural=water areas are next to each other? Shouldn't they be combined into a single area? way/911646037 for example.

Another example of an oddly rotated building: way/901820851

How do ways like 897192856 get rotated and not match the satellite imagery?

Hi Nate,

Can you take another look at way/9443888. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, so I hesitate trying to correct it. Maybe you have a better idea with a second look. Thanks.

Hello Taha,

It looks like you've given a name to way/735376301, but that name (according to Google translate) looks to be a description rather than the official city-blessed name for the road. Can you remove the description/name from it?

Thanks.

Something happened with way/844912860 recently, but I'm not sure how it should look. Maybe you could help fix it up? Thanks.