They are not the only account creating and deleting this exact shape over and over again, for another example of this type of vandalism see the following:

https://osmcha.org/?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22qiman%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22qiman%22%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%7D
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118866175

See note/3094308

In case this is reverted, see discussions at changeset/118237480 and changeset/118239176. This historical data does not belong in OSM and was even confirmed as good to remove by a DWG member.

Please remember to check your warnings: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-84.68312&lat=34.07273&zoom=18&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

These two ways that should be connected are not connected.

Its an easy fix so I can do it if you'd like, just wanted to let you know.

The golf cart path you added in this changeset (way/1006314948) was a duplicate of way/9373063. In fact you even disconnected this road from its original connection, breaking routing even further. Please do not do this in the future.

I have undone this vandalism in changeset/118417668.

The cart path you added here (way/947281384) was a duplicate of way/12511232 and causing routing issues reported by OSMI. I removed it in changeset/118417561.

You've duplicated a ton of ways in these changesets, see the following two examples:

way/1038832660
way/1039164434

way/1039164437
way/1038832663

Please check the warnings shown when saving your work, it even shows on the changeset here that it reported them to you but you just ignored those.

I just went through and deleted a bunch of these duplicates in changeset/118417416.

You have reverted these changes again, even after being confirmed here from a DWG member that this data doesn't belong in OSM. changeset/118304173

Ah no problem, I'm planning on going through a lot of these addresses to verify them and extremely thankful to learn that the Fulton County GIS data has already been license checked for OSM (makes my life a lot easier!). Thanks for the clarification and response!

Just to make sure, I'm planning on using the data specifically from these:
https://gisdata.fultoncountyga.gov
https://gis.fultoncountyga.gov/Apps/PropertyMapViewer/

Would it be safe to assume that those are covered under that same license?

Otherwise the change looks good, thanks for your contribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118259733

In the future please edit existing nodes rather than deleting and replacing them. Doing so will preserve the history of the object.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118259733

Whoops, I accidentally added "local knowledge" in the source here. I actually just used the imagery for this.

I'm not trying to disrespect you or the work you've done at all. In fact I'm quite thankful for the overwhelming majority of it.

However I do think its important to curate the data that is here, and to make sure that it is all still true and relevant. As far as I am aware, and I've gotten the same sentiment from most people I've interacted with, OSM is to map what is currently on the ground. If its there, it should be here. If its not there, it shouldn't be here. Simple as that.

However some of this historical data, while it is valuable to have available somewhere, doesn't really fit with OSM very well and I think that it just fits better in OHM than it does here.

Actually using OHM could be quite an advantage for you as well, since if the data is entered there properly you could go back and check what the rail network looked like at specific times in the past.

I agree they have better things to do than to decide on these 10 specific train tracks.

Good thing I asked a different question though: more broadly than this example, does historical train track data like this belong in OSM?

Not saying which way they will decide on it, but I do want to clarify this as well:

If the DWG says that these don't belong in OSM, be prepared for them to be removed.

Likewise if they say its fine in OSM, I'll leave them and won't remove any others.

Rather than argue about it (I don't think that would accomplish anything here) I reached out to the DWG to weigh in on the issue. I'll hold off on any changes regarding these until hearing back from them.

You should map what is on the ground, these lines are unverifiable since the tracks have been removed. Speculation using the building shapes is not a good reason to add these.

See for more info:
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

If you would like to map historical features please use OHM instead of OSM: osm.wiki/Open_Historical_Map

Quite a bit of the address data from here seems to be incorrect.

For example: osm.org/node/3582458605

This house should actually be "745 Glen Royal Drive" and the one next it already marked as "745" is actually "735".

Where did you source this import data from exactly?

Went ahead and removed these since there was no reply. In the future please use OHM to map historical features instead of OSM.

Quite a few train lines that no longer exist were added to the map in this changeset, for example way/971353167. Please use OHM to map historical features, those do not belong in OSM.

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

osm.wiki/Open_Historical_Map

Whoops, looks like the link was cut off in the commit message. Here is what that was supposed to be:
osm.wiki/Open_Historical_Map