thanks Carnildo, I just fixed it. You are right my brain misfired on that one.

Hi freebeer! Thanks for the tip! Good idea.

Burisma, feel free to make any adjustments to tags, like I said all that was changed was node/357926420 was deleted (because it was a duplicate) and node/357941533 that had similar information was kept (because it has a more recent date), so up to you which you wish to transfer to the polygon but again I am inclined to leave the existing node node/357941533 as is because it has elevation and was a gnis node bulk import...

Hi Burisma, that node was deleted because there was another duplicate node with similar information here: node/357941533 Figured it was best to remove the duplicate node that had older dates (357926420) and keep the node with a more recent date as is (357941533). Also the elevation tag is best as a node anyway rather than a polygon. In light of this I am inclined to leave the node and polygon tags as they are but please feel free to make changes.

Hi tylerchill, looks like the sidewalks (footways) you removed here now make the subway connections here un-routable for pedestrian routing to and from the subways. Do you think it would be best to keep any paths that actually connect point to point features for pedestrian routing purposes?

thanks freebeer, did not notice that option! Nice find!

Hi azakh-world!
Thanks for the note and your fixes, so sorry about that! Yes you are right, Ill start using JOSM for any new coastline fixes, Potlatch2 doesnt have very a very good interface for direction for coastline polys... Ill look at the coastline validator for any of my coastline polys and see what needs to be fixed. Thanks again!

Hi tylerchill,
It looks like this changeset changeset/68510362 added the paths you removed here about 4 months ago and the comment on the changeset seems to indicate these paths are located in this new development common space. Do you think that instead of deleting these paths they should instead stay? Perhaps could tag as private paths or something? Otherwise suggest reaching out to the user who made them to check on the path status but it would seem like the user thinks the site is complete.

Hi tylerchill,
Thanks for the updates! I think your changeset has inadvertently deleted some valid tags for these buildings such as height, building:levels, and name. I have gone back to fix it but please next time when you are making changes to existing buildings please transfer over existing tags that are valid, if you are unsure which are valid please ask the community before deleting important information.

ha i wish, no its always a long process agreed. this one took more than a hour but the majority are simple boxes (no complex shapes) and really most of them are just plain old building:levels tags with no 3d info. The birds eye view and 3d aerial photos and counting the levels is really the most expedient absent any detailed diagrams... ill leave the job of doing complex geometries to someone else :)

Hi jmapb, its a combination of different sources mainly looking at 3d aerials from google to count levels by hand or to determine what the 3d shapes look like. otherwise from looking for websites of the developer, news articles, or wikipedia these details can be found.

ok thanks for clarifying. probably best to not put a tag on the poi if you are not sure what to tag it with. That way you do not inadvertently create incorrectly tagged pois. If you are not sure what to tag it as, you could always just open a note at the location with the info instead and see what the community says.

Ok thanks tylerchill, sounds good. I replaced the relevant building, garage, and 3d building tags that were removed and kept all your edits so no worries about those its all set now. For future edits it may be best to leave existing tags as they are unless you know for sure the values are not correct anymore.

Hi tylerchill,
It looks like you may have inadvertently deleted valid and correct tags on these buildings here. This changeset deletes ways that have valid tags and you replaced them with new ways that do not have the same tags... For example: the original footprint with all its original tags has been lost: way/281336834/history and the parking garage with all of its valid tags (e.g. capacity etc): way/281336888/history is now lost. In addition all the height and 'building:levels' tags have been lost by these changes as well. Please be careful when deleting or modifying existing data, best case is if you are not sure what is correct to leave the original data as is or create a new way but transfer over the original tags. Otherwise we are loosing valid and valuable tags on ways...

Hi tylerchill,
I have noticed a number of pois in this area you have just created that have incorrect 'amenity=townhall' tags. The pois you are tagging are not townhalls. I have cleaned up 2 of the ones I have seen but I suggest you go back and clean up the other tags...

Hi avelex_lyft,
Looks like that tag you removed is only misspelled because it has a 's' on 'lane' so you could change 'parking:lanes' -> 'parking:lane' instead and it would then conform to the standard here:
parking:lane=* this may be the best approach to avoid deleting relevant data for all these streets...

Thanks for the note! I see you already corrected it thanks for that. I re-checked them all and they all look good now. Thanks again.

Hello,
Thanks for the explanation, that sounds good. I was just curious due to that specific poi having been updated by a user, I agree, I now see it was in fact a mass edit, I didnt realize that. I did not intend to make a comment about general historic tags in anyway but yes totally agreed with what you say in these cases. Good to know there is a systematic method being applied. Thanks!

In terms of advertising, that is a good question... I do not think I have any good suggestions...

Hello,
Question about these automatic deletions: in cases like the node that is deleted here 358229380, the poi has already been tagged by a user as 'historic:amenity' thus it will not show up on the map. In some cases these pois are useful even if they no longer exist and they are correct if they are tagged as a historic poi that used to exist. These are useful pois in these cases. What is the community's thoughts about this?

Hi JeremyDChicago,
It looks like you may have inadvertently deleted a number of valid tags on this way. Can you please either put the tags back in or revert your change? In addition, the name you put here 'RingCentral Coliseum' is not yet official, according to news it first needs to be approved by MLB so perhaps its best to leave the name as it was before and put "proposed:name=RingCentral Coliseum" instead until its official.

Hi Juang_64, no worries! I have not done reverts myself so Ill ask that another member please revert this changeset. Then feel free to add in your POIs as polys or points here. If there is no response in about a week Ill go ahead and try to fix it.