Is there a reason you deleted all these golf features?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139396959

So access tags should be used. It would prevent someone from inadvertently readding it, despite it being "closed"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320537

"Virtual=yes" is a non-standard tag with no OSM wiki page for it. Can you elaborate on what this tag means and why it should exist? Thanks.

I know this was a while ago, but please do not name buildings with descriptive tags, such as "abandoned" or "destroyed" when that is not their official name, just a description which can best be placed in a tag field.

Please use better changeset comments. What did you change and why?

You can read more here:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#:~:text=A%20good%20changeset%20comment%20should,have%20edited%20on%20the%20map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139322567

Don't add names to the features. These are descriptive tags. I have removed the names from all areas in this vicinity.

It was not to revert your work.

It was an attempt to cleanup after this changeset by another user:
osm.org/changeset/129972208

If there were intersecting polygons before his edits, then that is what it went to.

Full name should be used.

"dr" should be spelled out as "Drive"

Intersection roads NEED to be connected to the road. I have resolved this for you.

Access tags should be used such as "access=no", instead of deleting it since it will likely be readded, despite it being closed and the knowledge of closure won't be shared/saved.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139270470

Not sure why you would delete it if it isn't showing up?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139271157

Welcome to OSM. The changeset looks good!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139273847

It is visible in aerial imagery, clear as day.

osm.org/changeset/139323551

If it is closed, it shouldn't be deleted. It should just have access tags updated to access=no. I can still see it in aerial imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320537

If it is closed, it shouldn't be deleted. It should just have access tags updated to access=no.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320525

Areas should not partially overlap as has been done here with the Rough, and other features.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139260645

I've mentioned this before, and yet, those comments have been ignored. Do not map the areas all piece-mailed like this and with "lollipops". Multipolygons should be used to create "holes" in large areas.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139265168

Don't partially overlap areas. they should either be completely within the larger area, or it should be seperate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139280792

Removed features that don't exist (post office), old railway and added new features, including apartment complex. this was confirmed from an in-person survey.

Features that no longer exist, like the railway/tramway down the middle of the road that has been ripped out, replaced and overbuilt do not belong on OSM, but instead belong on OHM.

These features should be moved to OHM and removed to OSM. OSM is only what currently exists, not what may have existed at one point in time.

osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

Good question! Street sign. I looked at the Bing Streetside imagery, and then looked at the street sign. It had "William Court".

I was alerted to it by a nearby anonymous note.