FYI, buildings can be quickly squared using "q".

Do not outline buildings with a cartpaths. Be sure to use the correct tags, in this case, a building. Parts of this edit have been reverted.

User has an active block for similar low quality edits for a silly golf game.

Rather than just trying to clear an error flag, you should really check to see if a feature even exists. For example, this one doesn't exist, yet you just put effort in to clear a flag, rather than resolve the underlying issue.

osm.org/way/784821441

Rather than just trying to clear an error flag, you should really check to see if a feature even exists. For example, this one doesn't exist, yet you just put effort in to clear a flag, rather than resolve the underlying issue.

osm.org/way/784821441

Do not add non-existent cartpaths. Part or all of this edit has been reverted.

Is there a reason you added what should be roadways as golf cartpaths?

This ultimately damaged the map and is considered vandalism.

You changed roadways with valid names into descriptive names?

osm.org/way/17523663/history

What source was used for these pipelines?

It's interesting to note, that even Zluuzki agrees that non-existent rails shouldn't be mapped because it becomes too crowded when overlaid with existing items. They mention it here and in their diary/page.

"I deleted all ways on the overbuilt part, and left them were they aren't overbuilt. It would get too crowded otherwise."

But yet, these types of ways keep getting added back, and occasionally connected to roadways with railway crossing nodes being placed where there are none.

Buildings are not square. Please use "Q" to square them.

Prohibited paths should still be mapped, they should just be tagged as access=private, or access=no
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133492131

DO NOT CHANGE ROADWAYS TO CARTPATHS! If they are already correctly mapped as a roadway, changing it to a cartpath for a renderer is not permitted.

We have already gone over this multiple times.

All guidelines point to only mapping what is on the ground and which can be verified using ground truth. Items that no longer exist should be deleted and instead be added to OHM. As discussed previously, at what point do we not add razed features? Razed is very different from all removed. Having non-existent (or no longer existing) features is not beneficial to the goal of OSM of only having what exists.

Should abandoned=woods or razed tags be added to plains, woods, and wetlands since at one point they weren't residential buildings and roads? Hell, to a further extent, we might as well tag everything in the US as a razed ocean since at some point this area if earth was underwater before the land masses moved from Pangea. If we use the example of borders, can we added native american tribe borders? Might be some evidence using rivers as boundaries, and I am sure there are some maps that can be used - no, we can agree these belong on OHM instead.

I am not sure why there is such insitence to go against OSM guidelines and everything OSM is trying to acheive, rather than adding it to the right repository - OHM.

If it is because ORM can't pull from OHM, then that is an issue with ORM, not OSM, and further, mapping for the renderer is very explicitly prohibited, so this point falls flat. As has been maintained all along, "historical" features should be added to OHM, not OSM.
osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground

If you believe non-existent items should be added to OSM, you should take it up with OSM to change the guidelines changed.

Do not add trees as nodes to try and paint a picture of trees, use a landuse area of woods.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133440064

This is a lake/pond, not a water hazard. This edit is being reverted.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133412181

I know, but at least you do it right and add useful things to the map, and do so correctly, unlike some people. *cough cough* ...Who are still being cleaned up after.

These are some good imports! Even doing building parts! Man, if only you could get the same data and do this type of import around Atlanta to replace a bunch of other sub-par imports! :D

Looks like they all need some love here.

Will you be addressing the bad buildings here, such as:
osm.org/way/787696414

Please use multipolygons to map areas with an "island" in the middle.
osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Additionally, please do not use descriptive names to describe a feature.

I'm not going to go through and list every single one...

osm.org/way/967154977
osm.org/way/967154193
osm.org/way/967154845
osm.org/way/967154204
osm.org/way/967154832
osm.org/way/250757730
osm.org/way/967154267

It's suffice to say, these were not manually reviewed...