I also used Esri World Imagery for tracing the creek but for some reason I forgot to include it. My apologies

Hali! a 3-as főút relációjába belerondítottál Gödöllőnél és Hatvannál. Légyszi kerüld a körforgalmak sorrendjének átrendezését, mert az nem helyes, ha a körforgalmaknál a tagok nem egymás után vannak, az azt jelenti, hogy szakadás van a körforgalomba.
A körforgalmaknak úgy van a sorrendjük, hogy ahogy az út belemegy a körforgalomba, mint egy utas, aki át hajt rajta, megy át keresztül, ha meg kihajtottál a körforgalomból akkor odáig tart az adott forward szakasz amíg nem torkollik egy nem oneway szakaszba, és mivel ott van a visszafele út is, a forward way-sorozatnak az első pontjából akkor a másik irányból kellene megközelíteni ugyanazt a node-ot így elkerülve a szakadást. De azokat a tagokat, amiket pl egy kamion nem szokott használni mert nem megy körbe-körbe akkor azokat kihagyjuk.
(Így helyes csinálni, nézd meg majd a reláció jelenlegi változatát, a JOSM se mutat semmilyen szakadást)

Well, I just noticed that the forest doesn't render that's why I corrected part of it where the fault was but I'm not planning to correct Colorado. I'm mapping WV these days

Why did you delete landuse=residential?
Please don't do corrections in Hungary if you just break things. Thank you

You just made a rupture in the route nr. 7 relation, which I have to fix

Hehe :D Thanks! Actually the wiki project lists almost every changesets associated with this landcover project

Okay maybe you're right in this case but all of the taggings here, even in Shenandoah National Park and Jefferson National Forest is natural=wood.
(btw the fact we have landuse=forest and natural=wood is confusing)
The thing I'm doing is to reduce the amount of landuse=forest ways if it's unnecessary, to keep the numbers down in ohsome.org's dashboard calculator, since you can generate reports such as wood area by tagging (landuse=forest and natural=wood). Before this, WV had ~16-17 thousand km2 of natural=wood, ~1,5k km2 of landuse=forest tagged ways, relations. Now this 1,5k km2 has decreased significantly to around 400-500 km2 I assume which is great (since in JOSM i have a plugin for calculating ways - measurement)

I just like matching up the tagging. In my opinion, I only tag stuff as landuse=forest if it clearly shows that it's been under forestry like forests in Alabama(however I got told from asdfjkll that they're tagging everything there as natural=wood), or I know the exact border of the forest section, for example, in Hungary it's easy because we have named mountain ranges where we also associate the forest boundary with it so that is actually aligning to the forest boundary.
However, in the US it's not the same, because most of the forests are not touched and they're in massive amounts, even if they're operated by DoA or similar authorities. As I checked all over in Virginia, natural=wood is used everywhere, so this is why I changed the tagging. I hope now this makes everything clear.
(and I remember once being told to use natural=wood but that was waaay back in 2020)

By the way, I fixed up some multipolygon problems like overlapping or unclosed way or "area=yes" on wooded multipolygons when it's not needed.

Please don't put landuse=forest on National forests because the wood landcover doesn't always respect the border. This is one of the rules in OSM so-to say about public lands

that'd be 117617749 but it's good as I see

Oh wait.. wrong changeset, since i've done other mapping since then

I forgot to put Esri World imagery, because i had it turned off in the Layer list when mapped from NAIP. Sorry :D

+ aligned south branch potomac river at a point, hence the size of changeset

I also added some driveways.

Actually the ridge is called Alleghany Mountain

"Another thing i'd consider adding though later: inner residential/farmyard polygons where it's clearly visible that it's not a forest."
Oh, OK, I noticed that you already started. Nice. I also helped you out a bit at parts but not at the whole

Another thing i'd consider adding though later: inner residential/farmyard polygons where it's clearly visible that it's not a forest.

Alright, I see. Yes, I can agree on the bad alignment part. In West Virginia it's weird. In Summers County it has a bad alignment compared to NAIP, but in Mingo County it has a really good alignment. It varies a lot.

Hey RunTrails, I want to say that Bing has way newer imagery in the area which is on the quality as Esri World Clarity(or maybe better regarding resolution), and I checked the landcover to the newest Bing 2020 imagery (according to the metadata it was taken during summer of 2020, I checked in JOSM), and there's some wood cut down since 2011(Esri World Imagery Clarity is that really old). Also, there is the lower quality NAIP from 2020 if good quality Bing imagery is not available.

If you're still working on the area, then please realign the landcover to either Bing or NAIP imagery.

Another thing, I'd recommend using JOSM for mapping forest landcover, it's usually much faster to do it.

Oh yeah, I don't know if you heard about the OSM US Slack community, but if you haven't, then please consider joining it, so if there is an issue or information, it's easier to communicate there: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

But otherwise, you're doing an awesome work! Keep it up! Just please consider my suggestions.

Thanks!