This changeset has been reverted in part or full. These features are still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the features. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact. OSM maps the world as it is using aerial imagery and other similarly acceptable sources that are available.

osm.org/changeset/146729809

Do not map features that no longer exist on OSM. I have reverted this changeset in part or full.

This would be a good addition over on OpenHistoricalMaps though.

osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features#:~:text=Features%20that%20no%20longer%20exist%20should%20be%20deleted
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146655922

Why did you increase it. Was it wrong/incorrect?

Do not "lollipop" areas by folding it back onto itself leaving just a sliver. This is not correct. I have corrected the instances at this golf course. Multipolygon relations should be used instead.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146574890

Same comment from previous changesets...

osm.org/changeset/146469336

When mapping landcovers, such as fairways and greens, they should not partially overlap. I have gone through and fixed it for this course. I encourage you to review this webpage to avoid common pitfalls: osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

When mapping landcovers, such as fairways and greens, they should not partially overlap. I have gone through and fixed it for this course. I encourage you to review this webpage to avoid common pitfalls: osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146469336

When mapping landcovers, such as fairways and greens, they should not partially overlap. I have gone through and fixed it for this course. I encourage you to review this webpage to avoid common pitfalls: osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

When mapping landcovers, such as fairways and greens, they should not partially overlap. I have gone through and fixed it for this course.

I encourage you to review this webpage to avoid common pitfalls:
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. The feature is still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the feature. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact.

osm.org/changeset/146466560

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. The feature is still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the feature. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact.

osm.org/changeset/146466501

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. The feature is still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the feature. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact.

osm.org/changeset/146466501

Don't use descriptive tags like "Lake" in the name field for little bodies of water. just leave the name blank.

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. The feature is still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the feature. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact.

osm.org/changeset/146388271

Verify it even exists. A number of other features mapped by the user are questionable.

No BTC atm here...

Please use more detailed changeset comments. What did you change, and why? "(No comment)" doesn't tell me anything about what you did.

As I have previously mentioned on your previous changesets, please stop deleting to readd features.

You should read why here:
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146255564

When mapping golf courses, do not overlap landcovers. The fairways should not overlap the golf greens.

I encourage you to read up and avoid common mapping pitfalls here:

osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

Is this what replaced "Bar Uni" ?

Is there a reason you didn't remove "Bar Uni" and close your note?

When features are "private", they are not access=no. It should be access=private.

I have corrected this feature, but please be aware for future edits.