Hi, you moved node/7158859146, probably by accident? Also, adding features to osm which no longer exist is a little weird, like way/1256331482 which seems to go through a house?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148072806

Having address tags without a house number is meaningless.
osm.wiki/Addresses#Addresses_without_house_numbers
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147914617

I'm glad you found the square tool. If you want to connect with other mappers to ask questions or chat, consider joining https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/ (there's a Maine channel)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147994401

Regarding "name=Ballard Lane (Private)"
Please don't stuff other properties into the name field.

Hi, feedback from an internet stranger:
Attaching land-use areas to roads makes it harder to edit the roads. Please don't attach things in OSM unless they are physically connected to each other in the real world.
Having many small land-use polygons that are the same type and touching is a little weird. It would be simpler to draw a single encompassing polygon for each connected land-use type.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147459312

what is a "bor. fort." ?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147630084

I'm not sure how important, but I've been preserving the gnis:feature_id tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147623377

Welcome to OSM and thanks for adding these buildings.

You deleted some address nodes (for example 212 Wilson Street, and 200 Wilson Street) which means if anyone wanted to get driving directions there, they can't. Some of your address deletes seem reasonable (4 Somerset Street) because there's no building, but keep in mind that empty lots have addresses too. An empty lot address might mistakenly have a building tag, which you can fix by deleting the building tag but leaving the address. I've put some of the addresses you deleted back because I see buildings on satellite imagery and the address seems reasonable in context, but I'm not local so I could be mistaken?

My changes are at changeset/147329830

Ask if you have any question, -Alex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147314282

Address details are for navigation or where mail will go and are useless without an addr:housenumber. If it doesn't have a house number (like this park seems to not have one) then saying "This is in EastBoothbay, Maine", "this is near School street", "this has a zipcode" (which is a lie) are unhelpful

More details: addr:*=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147260466

Be warned that zip codes are only loosely correlated to town boundaries. The zip code maps you mentioned which show polygons are mostly lies. Anything that shows an "area" is a lie. I'm speaking from painful experience.

The question "which town is this?" has a technical answer (Boothbay) but also a "common" answer. For example, Springvale Maine isn't even a town, it's part of Sanford. But if you go there and ask anyone what town they're in, they say "Springvale". It's also what they will give as their address. The mailman doesn't care, they only care about the zipcode.

I think East Boothbay is the same situation. One of the ways I've checked this remotely is by looking at business websites. Your edit includes "Washburn and Doughty Associates" which has a website: https://www.washburndoughty.com/. The website gives the address "7 Enterprise Street East Boothbay, Maine 04544" (nice that it confirms the zipcode) and I think this demonstrates the "common" answer to "which town is this?". Maybe check a few more businesses before calling an anecdote a conclusion.

It's fine to have the addr:city tag be either the "technically" or the "common" answer, I've been trying to use the common answer in my work thinking it will make the map more relevant to locals and visitors.

Hello Bobby Rock 999,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for adding to the map. It's normal for new mappers to make small mistakes and I try to offer gentle guidance so this map can be more complete and useful.

Those houses... You gave them addresses but you used the name tag. For addresses to be useful they need to be in their own tags, like the street name goes in "addr:street" tag.

But also, the addresses already existed as nodes before. It would be fine to just leave the address node separate from the building and not give the building its own address tags. It would be fine to move the address tags to the building and then delete the node. Let me know if you have questions.

In case you like reading long technical documents: osm.wiki/Addresses

-Alex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147105610

In case the original editor sees this. These names would be great in a "name:aaq" tag to specify the language.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147114294

Hello edops,

Thank you for your work. With this change I see you changed an "add:city" from "Boothbay Harbor" to "Boothbay". I'm the one that created that original address. In many places (like Boothbay) I was relying on sketchy data sources and I didn't have local knowledge to verify it, which resulted in errors like this one that you found and fixed. But if you find one error like this, there are probably MANY more of the exact same issue nearby since I was working "in bulk".

If you have the local knowledge to be sure it's wrong but you don't want to manually fix a large mess (that I made) I would be very happy to work with you and we can make "bulk fixes" together.

-Alex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147143679

This mapper has moved many town boundaries to be on the edge of a river. I've moved them all back to the legal town lines.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135634168

I see you've changed the shape of a town boundary. Since the legal town lines haven't moved, these town lines are now in the wrong place. Please stop changing the shape of towns.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146601410

Ah yes, you "fixed" another city's label by attaching the node to a road (why?) then duplicating the node and taking the tags but leaving the relation on the road's node. Please stop "fixing" these.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146689446

If by "fixed" you mean you "broke the city relation so the label won't show on the map"... I just went through and fixed all these relations a few weeks ago... But it looks like you came back a broke them again?

Relations are hard, I know. If you're having trouble with them please ask for help or don't mess with it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146689493

Please use `name:aaq=Pαnawαhpskéwihtəkʷ` as a separate tag instead of putting multiple things into a single name tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146720117

Instead of using the name tag, consider: "trailblazed=yes" and "colour=blue". Mentioning it in case you do a lot of trail mapping.
This could get a map program to show a colored line for the trail.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146764151