Hello, I've been looking for drawings of roadways on top of roadways and noticed Bebe's walk. These drawings that overlap causes confusion when asking a computer to route through these drawing errors. Could this route be represented some other way like a bike path relation, else this route will need to be deleted where it overlaps roads?

Oh, it looks like node node/177288693 got disturbed as well, same deal or let me know if you need help!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your contributions!

However I'd like to point out that there were some errors that were introduced in your changes. I had noted that you moved two nodes at node/8810347422 and node/5561445353 that would route cars in the wrong direction, please be more careful when clicking and dragging especially on slow machines! If you could fix these it'd be great else please let me know if you'd like for someone else to fix it if you're not sure. Thanks for reading!

Hi, I think you accidentally disturbed the layout of West Fairmount Drive way/251611950 - is it now like this on the ground instead of what it looks like in imagery?

It might not be that inconsistent... The whole area is under amenity=university, but not sure if it's best to have Newsom Hall be building=university - though it is a CSU building, it's a residence hall versus something like a lecture hall, so not sure whether the distinction matters. Perhaps it could be building=residential too...

Hi, welcome and thanks for adding new roads!
I've been looking at routing errors and noticed that the new road drawn at way/1105658502 overlaps way/766818209 and it's not clear to me which one I'd be driving on if I were driving east to west. It's probably Prismo Lane, but if you know which for sure, it'd be great if you could update this, thanks!

Hi, looks like you may have accidentally dragged node node/7537269384 out to an improper spot, could you fix this? Thanks!

Hi, thanks for adding the cross country course. However it's causing a lot of violations. There's a rule: one item, one object, so if the course shares a path with some existing item, you should use that existing item. Right now there are a ton of things that are crossing and overlapping existing paths and I'm tempted to rip up/delete the path due to the immense number of violations here.

Since it appears to share existing paths, the correct mapping is to add paths that don't share and create a route relation that encompasses these and the paths that do share, which may include roads or other sidewalks or paths. Otherwise there is some ambiguity when you're there, which road one is on when there is really only one...

Hello, thanks for your contribution for the Metacoment-Monadnock Trail. However some pieces you've added is causing many validation errors due to overlapping and crossing roads. As the trail shares the road network and other trails, the proper way is to use a relation to highlight the trail versus drawing another footpath on top of existing roads.
I do see a relation relation/2317544 which should be used for the full trail instead of adding pieces named as such. Adding pieces named Metacomet-Monadnock Trail, unless the path is solely used for this trail, is one example of "drawing for the renderer" that should not be done.
Let me know if you're not sure what I mean here.

Hi, I thought we decided this to be trunk, not motorway: osm.wiki/Colorado/Highway_Classification Should this be reverted?

Hi, I believe the tag you're looking for is roof:levels=2 and this should fully resolve one aspect of the fixme request. The building sounds like it should be building:levels=1 instead however, take a look at building:levels=* for details. I'm not sure how to categorize the roof (roof:shape), it doesn't appear to be fully gabled in the imagery.

Hi, just as a comment, we shouldn't be putting names on buildings unless they are specifically named as such... that being said, if there's a whole bunch of buildings named the same near each other, they're not really named to distinguish them from each other? :)
Well, ideally the apartment complex name should be put on the landuse polygon that encompasses all the buildings, so we know that each of the buildings within the complex are related together because they all sit in the same landuse. Shows up much more tidy too.

Okay I think I fixed it in changeset changeset/125868279

Ah okay, sorry had to go back to whoever made the version 1's. will need to find out what's going on here...

Hi, way/1050682243 seems to be very short bike route too, but it overlaps an existing road. Should all of these cycle route ways actually be put into a bike route relation instead?

Hi, way/1051594775 seems very short to be a bike "route" ... was this complete? Also this is overlapping a road, which is a violation - which lead me to this in the first place. Know more about this route to make it better?

Hi, I noticed you added way/1025921851 a while ago, but as I was looking at the imagery, is this a new separate sidewalk that was recently constructed that people are not allowed to drive cars on, or are you just describing the road that people can also walk on?

If it's the latter, roads already implicitly allow people walking on it, and the extra path is actually wrong since it implies there's a curb or at least a bit of grass that separates the road and the footpath.

But again, this is only because I'm armchair investigating map violations. Let me know if the imagery is old and that'd mean I'm off base!

Hi, I am wondering about the two abandoned railways 1018544766 and 1018544767 - I don't see them in imagery and buildings have been built over them, should they really be "abandoned" (meaning the bed and metal should be there but overgrown with weeds), "razed" (they were removed), or should they simply be removed as they no longer exist?

Hi, I'm curious about the tunnel (way #1062192503) - is this a real tunnel here? Seems kind of odd but maybe it's correct...

hey, thanks for edits. However just wanted to let you know the roundabout you added may be turning in the wrong direction, we should be driving on the right side of the road and make a right when entering a roundabout, and going around counterclockwise. I'd be surprised if this is not the case here but just wanted to let you know.