Thank you for your edits. I try to review all changes in Maine (yours look great). Please consider grouping multiple edits together into a single change-set if they are in the same area and are similar changes. That would make it much easier for me (or others) to review. -Alex
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98814907

Instead of deleting a whole bunch of things, then redrawing them slightly shifted, consider just moving the things over.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98445030

Please see:
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=d0742415-5333-4f50-b97e-70ad46149961&cp=43.750936~-70.463946&lvl=19&dir=96.31782&pi=-8.081584&style=x&mo=z.2.46&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027
I'm changing it back.

You made part of the mountain division trail into a service road, which means that it is suitable for motor vehicles. I believe this is a dedicated hiking/biking path. Why do you think this is for cars?

Hello Zola, welcome to OSM.
I've reviewed your changes and the element and details you added conflict with authoritative data sources. It seems like you're adding fictional information to OSM, like where roads are or what they are named. If I am mistaken, please provide a referencing supporting any one of your edits.
OSM is used by real people for real things, like vehicle navigation, which is disrupted when the map has inaccurate information.
If you want to have fun playing with a map, there is a place for that! See: https://www.opengeofiction.net/
If you want to improve a real map of the world with real, verifiable details, you might find helpful information about OSM in the wiki: osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide
If you have any questions, please ask.
-Alex

Thank you for adding this business. In the future, instead of adding a new node, feel free to add these details to the existing buildings, since the building only has one thing in it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81274102

I'm curious why you've added no-exit to these. (wondering if I should do the same)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98434887

I'm glad you mentioned the bed and breakfast which is currently here. I found it at quoddyvacation.com
That page lists current names for these buildings (and pictures with signs) which conflict with the historic names.
North building "The Station House"
East building "The Cabin"
South building "The Camp"
West building "The Lodge"
It refers to the compound as "West Quoddy Station", which conveniently sidesteps any confusion about "lifesaving". How do you feel about historic names in [old_name] and current names in [name], for here and other similar situations?

I've fixed your name and addr:street tags to be Title Case.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98171102

I've deleted the building you added because it duplicated an existing building which had the same information. I left the bicycle parking. Please let me know if I've misunderstood the situation or if you have questions.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98078499

Thanks for responding. I see the reason for your naming conventions and it sure would be bad for someone to think this is a real, current feature. Since you were making many similar edits and I was unsure how to proceed, I asked in the US OSM Slack #harmful-edits channel yesterday (though, you're far from "harmful"). Several people responded suggesting that this content would be more appropriate on OHM (https://www.openhistoricalmap.org). OSM is a place for verifiable features about the current, real world.
I think there's room for many of the features/details you're adding in OSM and they are valuable to the community.
I'm trying to think of a compromise that would adhere to "the letter of OSM's naming convention" (which I feel has value to the community) and also achieves your goals. My first thought is the "old_name" tag, which would make the situation clear in a machine readable way. Others might have different/better suggestions?

Regarding way/819650176, website is reserved for the official website of something, but you've linked to a picture hosting page? see website=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97997082

I see you mixing other information into the name tag on many of your edits. The name tag is for holding the name and nothing else. You have added reference links in other fields which clearly show the name of the feature. Please stick to the name that you find in reference material without making any creative changes to it. Please respond to confirm that you have received this message. If you feel you have good reason for making your own custom adjustments to the information you find on a reference, let's discuss it. Please see:
name=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97860952

You added way/897712671 as wetlands, but I think it might be more appropriate as basin=detention
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97859582

You added way/897707813 as part of the ramp to the highway. You put highway=service but I think highway=motorway_link would be much more appropriate. Also, I think this is one-way... Could you please improve it or let me know if you need help fixing it. Looking at the adjacent roads should hint at what it should be.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97858881

Just wanted to say thanks for all the cleanup and added detail.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97652484

You moved NODE: 7183099174, (a residential building with an address) far away from where it was. I'm assuming this was a mistake. Can you either: confirm that it was intentional, confirm that it was a mistake and fix it, or confirm that it was a mistake and let me know I should fix it. - Alex
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97642900

When adding links, it's helpful to leave out unnecessary tracking details like "?ref=page_internal". That's just clutter.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97640946

@WeChat, Welcome to OSM! I don't think any part of this is automated, so maybe the "import guidelines" would be a more appropriate concern. You can find the documentation here: osm.wiki/Import/Maine_Admin_Boundary_Import
We'd appreciate any feedback you have about the process or the quality of the changes.

Your note="Grounds owned by Pine Island Camp..." might be more appropriate as owner="Pine Island Camp" since structured data is easier for data consumers.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97636197