You can use "Q" to square the houses. They are all mapped with random angles but they should be cleaned up a bit.

Thanks for updating.

You don't need to add a name. You can just remove it. Names should only be the official name, and not descriptive, such as "(Empty)". I have updated it for you. :)

No clue. I recommend full reversion.

Hello. I kindly request you pause adding buildings at this time until further discussion. I'm trying to piece together feedback on how to proceed.

It appears you are just spamming random squares everywhere you see a building. While we want data on OSM, we want quality as well. The areas you are adding are not representative of their actual size or even alignment (why do they all face the same direction?). Furthermore, you are adding all of them as just 1 level, but with some spot checking this isn't always correct as some are observed to have 2 levels.

I'm not sure how to resolve this and move forward. Revert and add better quality from scratch? Make you adjust each one and correct it? I'm not sure. But to start, they should be realigned and size/shapes should be adjusted to the actual imagery of each house.

Copy/paste is not really OSM style. There are tools that can provide much better data than what you have done.

https://rapideditor.org/

These buildings are all at a wonky angle not representative of their position, size or alignment... When drawing buildings, you should try to at least get the same size, shape and angle of what is actually on the map.

You shouldn't just copy/paste them all, especially when they aren't close to what actually exists.

good edit
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157381772

Hi, welcome to OSM. This edit is going to be reverted as the classification change is incorrect. This road falls under residential or minor and is not a Primary road.

Don't add office buildings when they are really residential houses just for your golf game.

Hello,

Hate to bump the thread. Ran across a bad node that wasn't successfully reverted at the time:

osm.org/node/585366799/history

Found another here as well:

osm.org/node/585365219

## BREAK ##

That data seems more wrong than ever. Would it be realistic to try reverting the original edit to add it? Maybe have a check and only revert the ones without check_date=* ?

Found some of these bad nodes still in existence. Going to follow up on revert changeset so all discussion is in the same place.

osm.org/changeset/124908478

Welcome to OSM. This changeset has been reverted. Here on OpenStreetMaps (OSM) we map everything that can be verified, regardless of whether it is public or "private". To denote roads that we don't want to send people down because they are a private driveway, we use something called access tags. I have gone ahead and added access tags on these ways for you.

You can read more here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

osm.org/changeset/157192673

Welcome to OSM. This changeset has been reverted. Here on OpenStreetMaps (OSM) we map everything that can be verified, regardless of whether it is public or "private". To denote roads that we don't want to send people down because they are a private driveway, we use something called access tags. I have gone ahead and added access tags on these ways for you.

You can read more here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

osm.org/changeset/157192673

Good edit!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157152828

Hello, when mapping areas, please do not partially overlap areas. I have gone through and fixed this for you.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157104286

Hi Woodpeck, yes, I agree, a survey on the ground is likely needed for a definitive answer. With aerial imagery in hand, it is apparent there isn't much here at the moment, so I wasn't opposed to add access=private.

County/City land parcel map may help. But again, it comes down to if there are barriers present, otherwise ownserhip=private and access=permissive.

Do not map parking lots as buildings when it is just a lot.

Do not partially overlap areas (Ex: fairways partially overlapping a green)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156886744

Do not lollipop areas.

I encourage you to review this section before making further golf edits
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=for%20golf%20vehicule.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

When you map landcovers (fairways, rough, tees, etc.), do not partially overlap areas.

do not partially overlap land covers.