Typo in a few of these - cycleway:left=lane`

Visible via https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=165672238

Might be a street complete bug?

osm.org/way/135871916 intersects with a building - this doesn't seem to reflect bing imagery.

With areas like osm.org/way/109524629 I feel it's too large of an area to tag as an individual meadow. As there are multiple farmyard areas for example; it seems like this should be more closely aligned to obvious land parcels.

Tone it down a bit - new mapper trying to add driveways doesn't warrant this kind of hostility.

@TheSandMan6 You might want to model these as a 'driveway' or 'service' road. Alternatively, if it's more of a walking path; you can model these differently.

Please double check against the imagery carefully - there's a few of these that seem to go through where a building is.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=286761939711210&focus=photo&lat=-33.8698448&lng=151.19342919997&z=17&x=0.783317455881694&y=0.5060849986193738&zoom=2.178419442331599 suggests this is ... "Harris Miller Cafe"?

Hi, could you spot check the changes around: osm.org/changeset/126483820

... to make sure the bus routes in that area are still accurate

Alright, I've tweaked the former roundabout not to have tags; and reconnected the bus route.
Since you've got a bit of local knowledge, might be worth double checking my edits.

Is osm.org/node/4375100473 a mini roundabout, or a turning circle?

Made some minor adjustments to flag some of the residential developments a a wide construction area - can you check I've got it right?

osm.org/way/311692475 seems malformed/not matching to imagery. Is there still a roundabout?

Hi,
With a lot of these addresses, they should be "Samford Road" (full/not abbreviated)

https://maproulette.org/challenge/36453/task/142494552

This seems in the wrong place, vs the address listed.

osm.wiki/How_We_Map

"When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there."

"Do not delete data unless you know (or have very strong reason to believe) that it is incorrect."

This is pretty simple guidance.

Reverting these edits is my solution, and you reflecting on the above mapping practices in my advice.

Put a single point if you feel strongly the pitch exists from imagery. It doesn't at the moment from survey. It might again. It doesn't right now.

> Perhaps not the the precision you desire

Uh. There's "someone did an approximation" but there's also "despite imagery, mapped geometry that has not existed".
Your edits are well into the latter territory.

> I think that this is an improvement

How can you make that judgement call?
You aren't local/surveying on the ground.
You aren't looking at imagery either.
You aren't a student or some other individual with greater access than the general public.

By any standard measure, you are ignoring what is observable and provable for... opinion; based on abstraction?

I probably wouldn't care if you were taking a collaborative approach and engaged with the local mappers in a constructive manner.
This is not that. Again, this is not the first time either.

Keep up the good work :)
If you'd like any buildings remotely mapped in the area, sing out. Another mapper and I did a big push along the coast, fleshing out a bit more seems doable

Oh, nice work :)
I don't get over that side of town too much, but if you'd like any remote mapping of buildings in the area or similar done, sing out.

> Looking on bing I can see the cricket wear

Bollocks. You can see a pitch. Making up a boundry based on rules which is *not* visible does not pass muster.

> Cricket is a summer game so it is not 'on the ground now'.

Again, if its not on the ground AND its not visible in imagery, as a remote mapper, what guarantees do you have that anyone will make a perfectly circular pitch?

I'm aware that mapping is an approximation. Coast lines, rivers, etc for example; good luck. Photogammetry, that's an art.

But this approach - modeling things that don't exist; in a way that they will be extremely unlikely to ever exist, based on "rules" - is not helpful.

Combine this with your pattern of remote mapping in an area - again, based on what a validator says are the "rules"; deleting contibutions, and abrasive commentary... well that's not helping the local map consumers or contributors either.

What you have put as source: bing *does not show this at all*.

The only sources I can find that show anything like this are:
* ERSI - different geometry
* Google maps, which also shows different geometry.

What's on the ground?
It's literally a giant mud puddle as several hundred children right now are busy stampeding all over this LARPING rugby or AFL. Is this temporary, or permanent? Who knows.
How do I know this? I'm physically in that area on a regular basis.

If you don't have ground survey; or imagery, adding something because of what "the standard approach is" while not actually verifying it not the right way to go about this.

You've on at least three occasions wandered into an area of the map and done edits based on "rules".
You've been abrasive about it while you are at it.

It's not appreciated, and it's not improving quality.

osm.org/way/1082798744 - completely circular cricket pitch does not agree with imagery or on the ground survey.

Similar issues have been introduced with osm.org/way/1082798746

osm.org/way/230955659 - This is clearly a building in bing; but as of this changeset, no longer.

Again, if you aren't in the area, perhaps don't make modifications that disagree with imagery.