Hi OpenDaveToo, Thanks for adding these buildings to OSM. I added address nodes a few years ago but your buildings are an improvement. As it stands now, the address is duplicated (one on your building and one of my node). When you Add buildings (and put the address on them) please delete the address nodes so there's no duplication. Thanks.
Reply here if that's confusing or you want help fixing this spot.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145001260

you replaced "sports_hall" with "pitch" but the documentation seems pretty clear. A sports hall might have pitches inside of it... but a pitch isn't a building and probably doesn't have a name like "gymnasium" or have its own address.

leisure=pitch
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145126160

It looks like to dragged the address '92 Commercial street' about a quarter mile north and embedded it in a building. Was that on purpose? If not, could you please fix it? If you can't, please respond asking for help.

node/7367743011
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145126491

There's a lot of randomly moved and deleted addresses. I've gone threw and fixed what I could. Please be more careful when using the editor.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142152481

Is anything from this changeset in the RIGHT location? (not rhetorical, I haven't checked)

We could delete anything created from this changeset which is still at version 1, as long as it's not part of a relation or way. Would that be awful?

Probably a discussion for an import list.

The way you have tagged these elements, there are now 4 schools here and 3 of them are very small. What were you trying to accomplish?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127754463

Consider leisure=pitch and sport=american_football would be more appropriate. This isn't really a "park".
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126717954

Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edit.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126794449

And I removed the name from the way. The river is already tagged with its name.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126827257

Hi, I've undone you change because you added a name to the municipal boundary (line between towns). The boundary happens to be near the river, but the river is already tagged with the name you gave. Please ask if you have questions or if you think I've made a mistake.
-Alex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126827279

Having house districts in osm seems cool. I'm surprised there aren't more formal tags beyond just a name.

Hi, seems like you're tagging individual strips of parking spots inside parking lots instead of tagging the whole parking lot. That's more detailed but it's not what I'd expect from the tag parking=street_side
Which describes spots along roads, not individuals sections of a parking lot.

After I left this comment I came across your more recent changes and they look great. Mistakes are normal and thanks for taking the time to contribute OSM. I've un-deleted the few addresses you removed (see changeset/116757423). I didn't adjust them at all, which means they are probably mis-aligned, which I can't reliably fix because I'm far away. But if you're local, you're in a good position to align/merge them with the correct buildings or to delete them if the address really doesn't exist.
-Alex

Regarding way/310440558 which you renamed "Arnold Trail (historic)". If the trail doesn't exist, please delete it. As you left it, routing engines will still try to send people on that trail.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115898467

Same thing (access=private should be ownership=private) regarding way/11520874. I'm pointing it out to you because you're doing a lot of it. Maybe you're seeing "no trespassing" signs? If that's thecase, please ignore me and have a nice day.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115892881

Just looking at way/11518217. You marked it as access private with means there's a "no trespassing" sign or a gate. I don't see any sign or gate but it looks like it might not be owned by the town (it's privately owned/maintained). It would be more appropriate to tag elements like this with "ownership=private", which was already tagged on this way. Tagging ways with "access=private" where it doesn't belong can have an adverse affect on routing and diminish the actual intent of that tag.

Hi again. I see you've deleted more addresses. This makes OSM less useful for vehicle navigation etc. Please do not delete addresses, or if you do, move those address details to the buildings they are associated with.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115860260

I see you deleted 11 addresses, drew buildings, but did not put the address details on the buildings. The result is that vehicles will no longer be able to get driving directions to these addresses. Please fix this by putting the deleted address details on the buildings or ask if you need help.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115859804

We usually try to expand names in OSM. Maybe this should be "Mount Pleasant Cemetery" vs "Mt. Pleasant Cemetery".
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115819434

Hi, I see you deleted a bunch of addresses on Emery Ln. Maybe you did this because the addresses weren't well aligned with the buildings. It would have been better to move the addresses to align with the building instead of deleting them. As you've left it, driving directions are no longer possible to these addresses.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115774993