It looks like you are adding plots. This is generally frowned upon. They also shouldn't be named "24" since they wouldn't be named like that.

osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Dplot#:~:text=OSM%20does%20not%20aim%20to%20be%20a%20land%20registry.%20You%20can%20add%20plot%20data%20if%20you%20want%20but%20only%20where%20the%20plot%20boundaries%20are%20actually%20visible%20on%20the%20ground.

When you add it, it is just "Kohl's"

The feature in question,
osm.org/way/87275986

Doesn't exist. While a couple artifacts exist, the canal is long gone and was previously removed, as it no longer exists and was only mapped for "historical" reasons - even by your own admission. The canal was originally replaced by subways, then replaced completely by the freeway. I would argue that it ceased to exist when the water stopped flowing and rails were laid (otherwise how well did trains work in the middle of a wet canal?!?).

The canal doesn't exist under the broad street bridge. Only thing left are some rails. The canal was replaced by rails many decades ago and is definitely not a canal (Confirmed on foot, with my own eyes, and from reading articles, etc.)

Where I-490 and all the homes are located, yeah, it doesn't exist. This isn't just from aerial imagery, I have lived in Rochester for years and have driven I-490 many times. The only time there was water was when it flooded and rained heavily, but never enough to say, "hey, there is a canal here". It was a relic of the past and no longer exists. Railways going through houses and parking lots - they have were dug up, removed and replaced since a house needs a foundation and parking lots/roads need a good base.

As far as adding "OHM=yes" - that still does not address the issue. The feature does not exist. It may have at one point but does not. The community seems to agree that things that no longer exist and are only mapped for "historical" reasons belong on OHM, not OSM.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why there is resistance to adding it to OHM where it is designed for "historical" features where it can live on, while OSM is purely for what is there *now*. *Now* there is no canal or railway pieces down the middle of I-490.

The wiki on features that no longer exist (like some of the railways and the former canal) makes no mention that it NEEDS to be added to OHM by the person removing it. It simply states that it should be removed. This makes sense since the person adding non-existent and no-longer-existing features would be the one with the sources to validate it ever existed and would be able to add it to OHM.
osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

Additionally, names should not contain "(historic)" as this is a description not the actual name. Even this page states "No longer existing objects should be deleted."
osm.wiki/Names#:~:text=apostrophe%2C%20one%20without.-,Name%20is%20the%20name%20only,-The%20names%20should

Land areas should not partially overlap, as has been mentioned before. Specifically, you just re-partially overlapped osm.org/way/965083344 with the tee-box.

I have yet again, gone ahead and cleaned up the partial overlaps.

This is yet again, another changeset where you have incorrectly partially overlapped features. I have mentioned this before in many changesets.

These items have been removed since they don't exist.

Why did you delete and readd the water area? Please be aware, when items are deleted and readded like this, version history is lost. In this case, you left off a lot of important tags that were already added to the water that need to be readded.

Changeset that deleted water:
osm.org/changeset/139665520

Resolved lollipoping and overlapping areas. Mapper was referred to DWG for continued lollipops and partial overlaps, despite multiple comments.

'This changeset has been reverted in part or full. It is still visible on aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead, such as "access=private".

You can read more about why it shouldn'"'"'t be removed here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

osm.org/changeset/139728787

Private driveways should still be mapped, however, access tags should be used in these instances, such as access=private
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139662782

Please use complete words in your changeset comments. What did you change, and why?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139635106

Ummmm.... Why did you delete the water?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139665520

The cartpaths should be added as paths and cartpaths, not highway=service.

Don't lollipop areas. Multirelations should be used to cut out "holes" of a feature, or they should just be layered. The thin areas to connect it, as you have done on the sand bunkers is incorrect. I have mentioned this multiple times before, but you continue to do it with no regards. As I have done with other changesets, this one and the others with the same issue will either be reverted or cleaned up, but probably the former.

I have mentioned this multiple times, and you still have not acknowledged, responded or stopped doing it. Do not create "lollipops" with the landuse/landcover areas. Multi-polygon relations should be utilized.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139668693

Instead of smashing the keyboard, can you please leave a more detailed changeset comment/description? What did you change, and why? Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139682723

Best option is to get it added on OpenHistoricalMaps (OHM). I believe the best way to do it is to do it in JOSM. I think there is a wiki page on how to do it. I am not well-versed on OHM and have only moved one rail over on Staten Island, but I did that manually.

Start and end dates can also be added, adding even more control because the lifecycle can even be changed from "proposed" to "construction" to "active" to "disused" to "abandoned" then "razed" and finally removed all together. The timeline can then be scrubbed and the status change can be viewed over time whoch is even cooler!

Don't overlap areas. They should be touching and not overlapping, or the smaller area should be fully contained within the bigger one.

I have cleaned it up to resolve the error flags caused by these edits.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139500523

I took a look at the edits. It looks pretty good. Keep up the good work.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139453237

Landcover shouldn't overlap, such as the fairway and the green. One should be fully within the other, or they should be snapped to each other.

The issue is that the renderer and database has no clue which is "on top" of the other.

Example one that has been fixed:
osm.org/way/1194877604

Please don't falsely change the map. Even if they did, most services don't get their data that quickly from OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138149569